Tag Archives: Loss of profit

Just published: Peter Allard v. Canada

Blogg_v41A much-anticipated award is now released for public, Peter A. Allard v Barbados.

As we have written before, a Canadian investor, Peter Allard, brought a claim against Barbados in Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2010. The case concerned Mr Allard’s environmental sanctuary in coastal Barbados. He grounded his claim on the failure of the government of Barbados to enforce its own environmental law which, as a result, has polluted his sanctuary.

The investor claimed that the government’s failure amounted to violation of Canada – Barbados Bilateral Investment Treaty.

In an award rendered in June 2016, the tribunal rejected the investor’s claim on all grounds.

The tribunal disagreed with the investor that Barbados has failed to accord him full protection and security by failing to prevent pollution from coming to the sanctuary. As a departing point, the tribunal asserted that the obligation of the State to provide the investment with full protection and security standard is of ”due diligence” and ”reasonable care” – not of strict liability.

In this case, the tribunal found that Barbadian officials have taken reasonable steps to protect the sanctuary. Among others, the tribunal pointed out that the officials established a committee tasked with developing plans for preservation of the sanctuary.

The claim of expropriation was also dismissed. The tribunal concluded that there was no substantial deprivation of the investment since the investor remains the owner of the sanctuary and operates a cafe there. The tribunal further referred to the investor’s statement during the hearing that ”there is some kind of business remaining there”.

Meanwhile, Simon Lester, a trade policy analyst for Cato Institute, argues that the case sends an important signal for environmental protection. According to him, the legal standard in BIT may pave the way for future cases that environmentalists could help investors bring against governments who may do too little to protect the environment. An example mentioned is if the impact of climate change, for instance rising sea level, caused damage to an investor’s property.

Examples of national courts acting in ISDS

Blogg_v35

National courts play important roles in safeguarding the rule-of-law outcome of ISDS proceedings. Under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, a party to an ISDS proceeding may request a national court to set aside an arbitral award. This can be done however on limited grounds, among others, if one of the parties was unable to present its case and if the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. In addition, arbitration laws of a country also may provide grounds for setting aside an award.

Let’s take a look when this actually happened in practice.

In CME Czech Republic v Czech Republic, the tribunal found that the country’s media authority had destroyed the investor’s exclusive position as services provider for a private Czech TV channel, which left the company with assets but without business. In this case, the tribunal sided with the investor that the actions constituted an expropriation under the Netherlands – the Czech Republic Bilateral Investment Treaty.

The Czech Republic further requested the Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden to set aside the award under the Swedish Arbitration Act, on the grounds that, among others, one of the arbitrators had been excluded from the deliberations and that the award violated Swedish public policy. The Court of Appeal rejected this claim and found that the tribunal had given the arbitrators reasonable time to submit comments. Further, the Court viewed that the Czech Republic had failed to show that the award violated public policy. The Court therefore rejected the request on all grounds.

Meanwhile, in Metalclad v. Mexico, the tribunal found a violation of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement since the investor was denied fair and equitable treatment by the government due to the absence of clear rules about a certain permit. According to the tribunal, this amounted to a failure by the government to ensure transparency for the investor.

Mexico submitted a request to the British Columbia Supreme Court in Canada to set aside the award, on the grounds that the tribunal had incorrectly considered that transparency requirement formed part of minimum standard of treatment and expropriation provisions of Chapter 11 of the NAFTA. The Court agreed with Mexico and ruled that the tribunal had decided a matter beyond its jurisdiction. The award was therefore partly set aside the award.

Philip Morris v. Uruguay

Blogg_v34Our next case summary is Philip Morris v. Uruguay. This summary is prepared based on the publicly-available award rendered in July 2016.

The case reminds us of the one between Philip Morris and Australia. In both cases, Philip Morris claimed that their investment had lost value due to a new tobacco legislation and therefore the company is entitled to compensation.

The case against Australia was dismissed at an early stage, when the tribunal held that Philip Morris unlawfully took advantage of a subsidiary in order to get access to ISDS. Therefore, the tribunal did not examine the main issue of the case, which was the tobacco legislation itself. Meanwhile, the dispute with Uruguay went all the way to the assessment of the measure in dispute, and the majority of the tribunal found that the Uruguayan tobacco legislation did not violate the bilateral investment treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay (BIT).

Philip Morris based its arguments on two main parts of the Uruguayan legislation: first was the decision by the country’s Ministry of Health that bans selling different types of presentations of the same brand of cigarettes (it is not allowed to sell a product that is ”light”, ”menthol” or ”gold”). The second is a presidential decision which requires that the images of health warning on cigarette package increase from 50% to 80%.

The company argued that these measures violated several provisions in the BIT, including a violation of its intellectual property rights.

In the 300-page award, the tribunal asserted that intellectual property rights are indeed protected by the BIT – however it did not find that the state violated the agreement as the company failed to prove that it had suffered a level of damage required to find violation. Further, according to the tribunal, the state has a large policy space to implement reforms aiming to protect legitimate interest – and therefore this type of measure cannot be considered an expropriation or a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard of protection as long as they are made on rational grounds and in good faith. It found that Uruguay had a genuine interest in protecting public health – and that the government adopted the reforms in a serious and well-motivated manner.

Another argument by Philip Morris was that it was denied a fair trial in the Uruguayan courts, where the company had first tried to appeal the tobacco measures. The company claimed that two different instances of court system in the country had ruled contrary to each other. In this case, even though the Supreme Court sided with the company, an administrative court chose ignore the Supreme Court and rejected the company’s appeal. The tribunal agreed that this was strange but at the same time viewed that this fact was not enough to consider that Philip Morris had been denied a fair trial.

Because Philip Morris’ claims were dismissed on its entirety, the company was ordered to pay the entire cost of the dispute, as well as 70% of Uruguay’s legal fees.

Case Summary No. 6

Image of blurred store for backgroundOur sixth example of an ISDS case is Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, a case filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, D.C. The summary is based on the facts as described in the award rendered in April 2013.

The claimant, Mr. Franck Arif, a French national, was the sole owner of a company that had won a state tender to operate a series of duty-free stores at five locations along the Romanian border. The company had also secured the exclusive right to operate a duty-free store at the country’s main airport. In filing for arbitration, Mr. Arif argued that the success of his investments had been obstructed by a series of government delays, unnecessary inspections, and domestic judicial decisions that invalidated both the tender for the border-stores and the lease agreement for the airport store. Mr. Arif argued that the Moldovan state’s actions had violated several provisions of the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between France and Moldova.

The arbitral tribunal rejected most of the claimant’s claims (e.g. expropriation, denial of justice, discrimination), but granted one of his claims based on the fair and equitable treatment standard set forth in the BIT. In short, the tribunal found that the state’s actions had frustrated the investor’s legitimate expectation of a secure legal framework in which to operate the airport store. For this breach, the investor was awarded USD 2.8 million in damages, significantly less than the USD 44 million he had requested. The tribunal also gave Moldova the option of further reducing the damages owed to Mr. Arif by offering restitution instead—in effect allowing him to re-open the store at issue.

Mr. Franck Arif also sued Moldova at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on the grounds that the Moldovan government’s actions breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Disputes before European Court last many years; no verdict has yet been reached in the case filed by Mr. Arif.

Does ISDS compensate for loss of profit?

In case of expropriation, investment treaties typically provide for compensation in accordance with the “fair market value” of the investment at the time the expropriation takes place.

An assessment of the value of an investment may also include the reasonable and predictable performance of the investment in the future – which will largely be determined by evidence. It is the investor who must be able to convincingly demonstrate  (i) the causal link between the government action and the loss of profit, which in practice can be quite difficult since typically many factors impact the profit of an investment other than a governmental action, and (ii) how much profit the investment in fact had generated, had the measure not taken place.

In practice, government and investor often seek expertise from accountants or other experts in conducting the calculation. It is therefore ultimately a pure question of fact which the tribunal must consider. In some cases, the facts are not very complicated. In others, the issue is very  complex.

It is, however, not very common that investors are fully successful in receiving the full amounts as claimed, even if the investor succeeds on the merits of the case.

For instance, in Metalclad v. Mexico, the tribunal noted that future profit cannot be used in determining the investment value if the investment has not been operating for a sufficiently long period to establish a performance record. In Swembalt v. Latvia, the tribunal rejected investor’s claim for loss of profit due to failure of the investor to provide a basis of its calculation.

To say that ISDS “guarantees compensation for lost profits” is thus disguising the reality. When the investment treaty does not specifically define the calculation of damages, theoretically an investor may receive compensation for loss of profit. But the practical reality is something completely different.