Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Newly Posted Awards, Decisions & Materials

5 May 2026
Banesco Holding Latinoamérica, S.A. and Banesco (Panamá), S.A. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/23/41
Document provided by: ICSID
View case details
Award (Spanish)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Award (Spanish)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Álvaro Galindo Cardona
Respondent appointee
Rafael Rincón Ordoñez
Tribunal/Panel chair
Franz X. Stirnimann Fuentes
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Fernando Irurzun Montoro, Amaia Rivas Kortazar, Fernando Giménez-Alvear Gutiérrez Maturana, Elías Soria Iglesias, Chelo Borrás Retamero, Marina Arraiza Shakirova
Respondent's counsel
Margie-Lys Jaime Ramírez, Michelle A. Mastellari Bonilla, Héctor Alexander, Miguel Ángel Clare González-Revilla, Jaime Gallego, Domitille Baizeau, Luis Miguel Velarde Saffer, Riccardo Loschi, Maël Deschamps
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Antón García, Alan Rozenberg, Adán Arnulfo Arjona L.
Respondent's expert
Sebastián Cerda Norambuena, Iván Alonso Herrera, Ítalo Muñoz Bazán, Luis Alberto Palacios Aparicio
Claimant's witness
Alfonso Prieto González
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Francisco Abriani
Tribunal assistant
Magdalena Bulit Goñi
Entities
Panama, Clifford Chance, LALIVE, Compass Lexecon, Econsult Capital, Alonso & Muñoz
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Award (Spanish)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

An ICSID tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by Banesco against Panama under the Spain-Panama bilateral investment treaty. The dispute arose out of thirty-five public works infrastructure projects in Panama for which Banesco Seguros S.A., a Panamanian operating entity wholly owned by local holding company Banesco (Panamá) S.A. and indirectly controlled by Spanish parent entity Banesco Holding Latinoamérica, S.A. (BHL), had issued advance payment bonds and performance bonds between 2014 and 2017. Following extensive defaults and abandonments by the underlying construction contractors, various Panamanian administrative entities initiated contract termination proceedings and subsequently sought execution of the respective bonds. The Claimants commenced ICSID arbitration alleging that the State's delayed, procedurally irregular, and unnotified execution of expired bonds constituted an arbitrary composite act in breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard under Article IV of the Bilateral Investment Treaty, claiming damages in the amount of USD 13,568,317 across a total bonded portfolio of approximately USD 45.6 million (paras. 1-14, 47-86). Addressing preliminary jurisdictional objections, the Tribunal upheld Panama's objection ratione personae regarding Banesco Panamá, holding that a local company cannot qualify as a foreign investor under Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention absent an express treaty agreement treating local entities under foreign control as foreign nationals, which Article I(2) of the Treaty did not supply. However, the Tribunal rejected Panama's objections ratione materiae and ratione voluntatis with respect to BHL. It determined that the claims genuinely concerned the sovereign exercise of administrative powers rather than pure contractual issues, that the pre-arbitral notification requirements did not demand piecemeal negotiation of each subsequent administrative measure in an alleged unified course of conduct, and that prior domestic administrative and contentious-administrative proceedings initiated by Banesco Seguros did not trigger the Treaty's electa una via provision under Article XII(2) because the international claims were based on independent international treaty obligations (paras. 90-250). On the merits, BHL structured its case around the doctrine of a composite act pursuant to Article 15 of the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility, asserting that prolonged administrative inaction, late execution of expired bonds, systematic failures to provide thirty-day notices, and omissions to obtain bond extensions under the Civil Code cumulatively violated the fair and equitable treatment standard. Evaluating the domestic statutory framework (Law 22 of 2006 as amended by Law 48 of 2011), the Tribunal found that the legal rules governing bond duration and expiration following contractor default were characterized by genuine ambiguity. Because the administrative entities acted pursuant to a plausible and legally defensible interpretation of domestic legislation—an interpretation subsequently endorsed by the Panamanian Supreme Court of Justice in 2023 and 2024—the State's conduct could not be deemed arbitrary, irrational, or abusive under international law (paras. 251-541). The Tribunal further rejected BHL's claims regarding due process and legitimate expectations. It held that an ambiguous statutory framework cannot generate objective, protected expectations that a particular favorable interpretation will prevail, and observed that Banesco was not denied due process, having actively pursued and accessed domestic administrative and judicial remedies. In addition, the Tribunal concluded that the Claimants failed to prove the existence of an actionable composite act under Article 15 of the ILC Articles, as there was no evidence of a coordinated plan, common illicit purpose, or centralized governmental directive across the distinct procuring agencies. The observed administrative delays reflected decentralized administrative friction rather than an orchestrated campaign against the investor (paras. 542-598). In the operative award, the Tribunal dismissed all substantive claims on the merits (para. 635). In allocating costs pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 52, the Tribunal ordered the parties to bear the costs of the arbitration equally, directed the Claimants to bear their own legal expenses, and ordered the Claimants to pay USD 900,000 toward Panama's legal defense costs, representing approximately 42.8% of the Respondent's incurred legal representation fees (paras. 600-635).
27 Jul 2026
Legacy Vulcan LLC v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/1
Document provided by: ICSID
View case details
Award (Redacted) (English)
Award (Redacted) (Spanish)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Award (Redacted) (English)
Award (Redacted) (Spanish)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Entities
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Award (Redacted) (English)
Award (Redacted) (Spanish)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


25 Jun 2026
José Alejandro Hernández Contreras v. Republic of Costa Rica (III), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/25/3
View case details
Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on the Terms of the Security for Costs Requested by the Respondent) (Spanish)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on the Terms of the Security for Costs Requested by the Respondent) (Spanish)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Mélanie Riofrio Piché
Arbitrator(s)
José Carlos Fernández Rozas, Luis Alberto González García
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Anna Toubiana
Tribunal assistant
María Paula Jijón
Entities
Costa Rica
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 4 (Decision on the Terms of the Security for Costs Requested by the Respondent) (Spanish)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

Following Procedural Order No. 3, which ordered the Claimant to post security for costs in the amount of USD 1.2 million, the Parties failed to reach an agreement on the specific terms of the required bank guarantee. Consequently, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 4 to resolve the outstanding disagreements regarding the conditions of the proposed standby letter of credit (CDC) to be issued by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).

Tribunal's Analysis and Findings

The Tribunal first noted the agreed terms, including the instrument type, the beneficiary (Costa Rica), the principal amount, and the governing law (Illinois). It then systematically addressed the disputed elements. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's request to predetermine specific cost categories in the CDC, ruling that the instrument must be executable upon the mere presentation of a cost award, which would inherently define the payable amounts. Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's demand for an express waiver of the benefit of excussion, clarifying that a CDC constitutes an autonomous and primary obligation of the issuing bank, rendering such a waiver legally inapplicable and unnecessary.

The Tribunal also declined to require a clause explicitly stating that annulment proceedings would not suspend the payment obligation, nor did it mandate a non-annulability clause, emphasizing the irrevocable and independent nature of the CDC. However, the Tribunal granted the Respondent's request to prohibit the transfer or assignment of the CDC without prior consent, recognizing that the guarantee's efficacy relies on the specific creditworthiness of the issuing bank. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the inclusion of a direct notification obligation to the Respondent regarding any circumstances affecting the CDC's validity, enforceability, or effectiveness.

Operative Directions

In its dispositive section, the Tribunal granted the Parties a 20-day period to finalize the CDC text in accordance with the Order's parameters. The Claimant was directed to constitute the guarantee within 60 days and to submit a written declaration waiving any right to initiate legal actions aimed at frustrating the enforceability or execution of the CDC during the arbitration. The Tribunal reserved its decision on the costs of the present application.
1 May 2026
José Alejandro Hernández Contreras v. Republic of Costa Rica (III), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/25/3
View case details
Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Security for Costs) (Spanish)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Security for Costs) (Spanish)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Mélanie Riofrio Piché
Arbitrator(s)
José Carlos Fernández Rozas, Luis Alberto González García
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Pablo Peña Ortega, Sergio Arturo Rojas Peñaranda
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Anna Toubiana
Tribunal assistant
María Paula Jijón
Entities
Costa Rica, Reed Smith, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on Respondent's Request for Security for Costs) (Spanish)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is Procedural Order No. 3 issued by the Tribunal in an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration between José Alejandro Hernández Contreras and the Republic of Costa Rica. The Order addresses the Respondent's application for security for costs pursuant to Rule 63 of the 2022 ICSID Additional Facility Rules, seeking an order for the Claimant to post a guarantee of no less than USD 4 million.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The core issue before the Tribunal was whether the circumstances warranted an order for security for costs, requiring an assessment of the Claimant's financial capacity, his willingness to comply with an adverse costs award, the potential effect of the security on his ability to pursue the claim, and the parties' conduct. The Respondent argued that the Claimant's formal declaration of bankruptcy, lack of assets, and history of non-compliance in two prior related arbitrations (Hernández I and Hernández II) demonstrated a real risk of non-payment. Conversely, the Claimant contended that he possessed sufficient financial capacity, that the bankruptcy proceedings were abusive, and that a USD 4 million security order would be disproportionate and effectively stifle his access to justice.

Tribunal's Analysis and Findings

Applying the autonomous standard under Rule 63 of the 2022 ICSID AF Rules, the Tribunal concluded that there was a real risk the Claimant would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs award. The Tribunal emphasized that the Claimant was subject to an active bankruptcy proceeding, lacked registered assets, and failed to provide reliable independent evidence of sufficient financial capacity. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Claimant's procedural history—specifically his failure to timely pay advances and comply with a previous security for costs order in Hernández II—raised reasonable doubts regarding his willingness to comply with future cost obligations.

However, the Tribunal also weighed the potential impact of the requested security on the Claimant's ability to continue the arbitration. Rejecting the Respondent's USD 4 million request as potentially prohibitive, the Tribunal determined that a reduced security of USD 1.2 million struck the appropriate balance. The Tribunal noted that this amount was consistent with the security ordered in Hernández II and other recent arbitrations involving Costa Rica, providing adequate protection for the Respondent without imposing an insurmountable barrier to the Claimant's pursuit of his claims.

Operative Directions

The Tribunal partially granted the Respondent's application, ordering the Claimant to provide and maintain security for costs in the amount of USD 1.2 million in the form of a bank guarantee or equivalent financial instrument. The Claimant was directed to constitute the security within 60 days, subject to the suspension of the proceedings in the event of non-compliance.
20 Jul 2026
Fernando Paiz Andrade and Anabella Schloesser de León de Paiz v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/23/43
View case details
Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern (Redacted)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern (Redacted)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Nicolas Angelet
Arbitrator(s)
Brigitte Stern, Stephen L. Drymer, Nicolas Angelet
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Lucas Solimano
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Entities
Honduras
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern (Redacted)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document sets forth the Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern regarding the Tribunal’s Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Objections in an ICSID arbitration brought by Fernando Paiz Andrade and Anabella Schloesser de León de Paiz against the Republic of Honduras under the CAFTA-DR. The core issue bifurcated for preliminary determination was whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction ratione materiae, specifically whether the Claimants owned or controlled their alleged investment, Pacific Solar, at the time the arbitration commenced.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The jurisdictional dispute centered on the legal effect of two Trust Agreements executed in 2018 to secure project finance loans from two European development banks. Under these agreements, the legal title to Pacific Solar’s shares and assets was transferred to a Honduran trustee. The Respondent argued that this transfer under Honduran law extinguished the Claimants' ownership and control, thereby depriving them of standing. Conversely, the Claimants asserted that international law recognizes and protects their continuing beneficial ownership in the enterprise.

The Majority's Findings and the Dissenting Analysis

The majority of the Tribunal concluded that while the Claimants lacked standing to bring claims on their own behalf—deeming their right to recoup the shares and assets as "too hypothetical"—they nevertheless retained sufficient indirect ownership as third-ranking beneficiaries to bring claims on behalf of the local enterprise under CAFTA-DR Article 10.16.1(b).

Professor Stern dissented vigorously from this bifurcated conclusion, characterizing it as legally contradictory. Relying on established international jurisprudence (including Barcelona Traction, Encana, and Apotex), she emphasized that while international law protects existing beneficial ownership, it does not protect rights that are merely contingent, speculative, or uncertain. Professor Stern conducted a detailed analysis of the Trust Agreements under Honduran law, demonstrating that the Claimants held only a conditional, future interest that would materialize solely if the underlying loans were fully repaid and no event of default occurred. Because the primary lenders held the existing, first-ranking beneficial rights, the Claimants possessed neither de jure nor de facto control over Pacific Solar.

Conclusion

Concluding that the Claimants held no present, vested ownership or control over the local enterprise, Professor Stern determined that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae in its entirety. In her view, the Respondent’s preliminary objection should have been upheld in full, barring both the direct claims and the claims brought on behalf of the enterprise.
20 Jul 2026
Fernando Paiz Andrade and Anabella Schloesser de León de Paiz v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/23/43
View case details
Decision on the Bifurcated Jurisdictional Objections (Redacted)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision on the Bifurcated Jurisdictional Objections (Redacted)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Stephen L. Drymer
Respondent appointee
Brigitte Stern
Tribunal/Panel chair
Nicolas Angelet
Arbitrator(s)
Nicolas Angelet, Stephen L. Drymer, Brigitte Stern
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Silvia M. Marchili, Estefania San Juan, Andrea J. Menaker, Efat Elsherif, Mauricio Mourglia, Jacob Bachmaier
Respondent's counsel
Manuel Antonio Díaz Galeas, Marcio Ariel Canaca Curry, Nelson Gerardo Molina Flores, María Daniella Rueda Cárcamo, Olvin Antonio Mejía Cambar, Kenneth Juan Figueroa, Andrés Felipe Esteban Tovar, Lucas Solimano, Luis Brugal, Mariana Reyes Munera, Luis C. Battista, Irene Sorto, Marcela Muñoz, Norman V. Rodríguez Paz, Andy J. Rivera Zepeda
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Miguel A. Nakhle
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Fernando Paiz Andrade
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Gabriela González Giráldez
Tribunal assistant
Entities
White & Case, Foley Hoag, Compass Lexecon, Honduras, Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica, United States
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision on the Bifurcated Jurisdictional Objections (Redacted)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Objections issued by an ICSID Tribunal in an arbitration brought by Guatemalan nationals against the Republic of Honduras under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) and the ICSID Convention. The Tribunal addressed five preliminary objections raised by the Respondent following a prior procedural order granting bifurcation.

Jurisdictional Objections and Tribunal's Analysis

The Respondent first objected that the Claimants failed to exhaust local remedies, relying on a declaration made by Honduras upon ratifying the ICSID Convention. The Tribunal dismissed this objection, finding that while the declaration was a valid expression of Honduras's intent, it was superseded by the uniform consent regime established under CAFTA-DR Article 10.17, which grants access to ICSID arbitration without requiring the prior exhaustion of local remedies.

Second, the Respondent argued that the Claimants lacked ownership and control over the alleged investment because the shares and assets of the local enterprise, Pacific Solar, had been placed in trust to secure project finance loans. The Tribunal partially upheld and partially dismissed this objection. A majority found that the Claimants retained beneficial ownership, granting them standing to bring claims on behalf of the local enterprise pursuant to CAFTA-DR Article 10.16.1(b). However, the majority concluded that the Claimants lacked standing to claim reparation on their own behalf under Article 10.16.1(a), as their right to recoup the assets was contingent upon the full repayment of the loans.

Third, the Respondent objected to the Tribunal's jurisdiction ratione voluntatis over claims alleging the breach of contractual obligations, arguing that the Claimants could not use the CAFTA-DR Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clause to import an umbrella clause from third-party bilateral investment treaties. The Tribunal upheld this objection, ruling that the ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose of CAFTA-DR Article 10.4 do not permit the importation of abstract substantive protection standards from other treaties.

Finally, the Respondent contended that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), State Guarantee, and Operations Agreement did not constitute an "investment agreement" under CAFTA-DR Article 10.28. The Tribunal dismissed this objection, determining that the three interrelated instruments collectively satisfied the treaty's requirements, including execution by a national authority and the conferral of rights over natural resources.

Decision

The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's objections regarding the Claimants' standing to claim reparation on their own behalf and the importation of an umbrella clause via the MFN provision. All other jurisdictional objections were dismissed. The Tribunal ordered the proceeding to continue to the merits phase and reserved its decision on the allocation of costs.

Pages