Info Justice | 14-Jul-2017
The cool reasoning of the Canadian Supreme Court does not acknowledge or reference “external” pressures or the Eli Lilly v. Canada ISDS case. However, courts do not decide cases in a vacuum. This case seems to have been decided in a pressure cooker.
Lexology | 13-Jul-2017
A number of the provisions of the new legislation are inconsistent with the protections afforded to qualifying investors under agreements such as bilateral investment treaties.
APWLD | 13-Jul-2017
The ’No RCEP’ campaign urges governments to consider the adverse impact of the mega free trade agreement
Entorno Inteligente | 12-Jul-2017
Un tribunal de apelaciones de Estados Unidos rechazó hoy la intención de la petrolera ExxonMobil de forzar a Venezuela a honrar las disposiciones de un arbitraje internacional vinculado con la expropiación de activos de esa compañía.
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 12-Jul-2017
The ACFI model focuses on dispute prevention and bilateral governance, limiting arbitration to the State-to-State level.
European Commission | 12-Jul-2017
The United Nations has agreed to initiate work on possible multilateral reform of investment dispute settlement including the possible establishment of a multilateral investment court.
Green America | 12-Jul-2017
100 small businesses: NAFTA currently privileges multinational corporations over U.S. small business unfairly under “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” preferential treatment.
CDE | 12-Jul-2017
La justice américaine a rejeté une requête d’ExxonMobil lui demandant d’ordonner au Venezuela d’honorer une décision internationale imposant à Caracas de lui verser 188 millions de dollars pour avoir nationalisé un actif pétrolier en 2007.
Business Standard | 12-Jul-2017
The JIN includes the definition of investor and investment, exclusion of taxation measures, Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), National Treatment (NT) and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment, expropriation, essential security interests and settlement of disputes between an investor and a contracting party,
The Globe and Mail | 12-Jul-2017
A U.S. appeals court said a lower court judge erred in entering a judgment to enforce the $1.6-billion award, since reduced to about $188-million.