Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 5 - Investment Reprisal and Post-Establishment Illegality

  • Martin Jarrett
  • Book:
    Contributory Fault and Investor Misconduct in Investment Arbitration
    Published online:
    22 June 2019
    Print publication:
    11 July 2019, pp 109-158

  • Summary

    Chapter 5 looks at the other form of contributory fault: a defence called investment reprisal. Aside from the different causal relation that an instance of investment reprisal has to the relevant loss in comparison to mismanagement, the former involves wrongful conduct on the part of the investor, rather than risky conduct. For this reason, investment reprisal is a form of investor misconduct, which brings it close to another defence: post-establishment illegality. In establishing their doctrinal foundations, special attention is paid to how the circumstances that activate them differ from similar circumstances that relate to different rules, such as the legality requirement for jurisdiction. The bulk of this chapter is dedicated to detailing these defences’ legal content and traversing the difficult questions on jurisdiction and admissibility that they raise. Again, the opportunity is taken to propose a reason-based method for apportioning liability when these defences apply, and the concluding sections distinguish them from other related legal concepts.