On 30 July 2026, the arbitral tribunal in Cyrus Capital Partners, L.P. and Contrarian Capital Management, LLC v. United Mexican States rendered its Award in ICSID Case No. ARB/23/33, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims brought against Mexico under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) and Annex 14-C of […]
ICSID Arbitration
Banesco v. Panama: ICSID Jurisdiction, Foreign-Controlled Companies and Regulatory Ambiguity
On 5 May 2026, the arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in the ICSID proceedings brought by Banesco Holding Latinoamérica, S.A. (“BHL”) and Banesco (Panamá), S.A. (“Banesco Panama”) against the Republic of Panama (“Panama”) rendered its final award (the “Award”). The Tribunal, composed of Franz X. Stirnimann Fuentes as President, Rafael Rincón Ordóñez, and Alvaro Galindo, accepted […]
Security for Costs in Investment Arbitration
Security for costs has become an increasingly important procedural issue in investment arbitration. A respondent State may spend millions defending a treaty claim and, even after prevailing and obtaining a costs award, remain exposed to non-recovery where the claimant is insolvent or has few assets against which the award can be enforced. Security for costs […]
Buried Hill: Arbitrator Disqualified Over Bias Concerns
On 11 February 2026, in Buried Hill v. Turkmenistan, the two remaining arbitrators, Mr Siqueiros and Mr Goldberg (the “Unchallenged Arbitrators”), accepted Buried Hill Serdar Limited’s (the “Claimant”) proposal to disqualify Professor Philippe Sands, KC, from the tribunal. Their decision was based on Articles 14(1), 57 and 58 of the Convention on the Settlement of […]
Behind the Curtain: ICSID Arbitration Explained from Notice of Dispute to Enforcement
For an investor, a State, or an in-house legal team facing its first investment dispute, ICSID arbitration can appear unusually technical. It is not simply commercial arbitration administered by a familiar institution. What makes ICSID arbitration different is its treaty foundation, its particular jurisdictional requirements, its relative independence from national courts, and its self-contained system […]
LSG Building Solutions v. Romania: Annulment Is Not an Appeal
On 18 February 2026, an ad hoc committee constituted under the ICSID Convention (the “Committee”) unanimously dismissed Romania’s application for annulment of the Award rendered in an arbitration brought by LSG Building Solutions GmbH and nine other claimants (the “Claimants”). Annulment is a limited form of review for specific fundamental defects. It is not an […]
Moral Damages in Investor-State Arbitration after Emergofin
In Emergofin B.V. and Velbay Holdings Ltd. v. Ukraine, the Tribunal rejected the claim for moral damages from the outset. It did not treat moral damages as only a question of evidence or valuation; the Tribunal went further and held that the claim fell outside its jurisdiction or, alternatively, was inadmissible.[1] The Award incorporates the […]
State Immunity and ICSID Awards: The UK Supreme Court Joins International Consensus on Enforcement
On 4 March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (the “Supreme Court”) held in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd that Spain and Zimbabwe (the “States”) could not invoke state immunity to resist the registration in England of ICSID awards rendered against them. The […]
London Commercial Court: ICSID Awards Are Not Assignable (Operafund v Spain)
In Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV Plc and Schwab Holding AG v Kingdom of Spain [2025] EWHC 2874 (Comm), the English Commercial Court held that awards rendered under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”) or the Energy Charter Treaty 1994 (“ECT”) are not assignable to third […]
