Warning! Javascript is disabled. Please enable javascript for a completly functioning application.

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

about
methodology

About

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

General disclaimer

The Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

A case is included in the Navigator if it is:

  • an international arbitration between an investor and a State;
  • fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);
  • submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.

The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Case name

Full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable. If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first claimant followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation

This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA

This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules

These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution

This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

CRCICACairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
ICCInternational Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
ICSIDInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
LCIALondon Court of International Arbitration
MCCIMoscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
PCAPermanent Court of Arbitration
SCCStockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute

The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant.

Economic sector and subsector

This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings

This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

  • Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.
  • Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.
  • Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.
    Notes:
    • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.
    • Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
  • Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

Arbitral decisions rendered

These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded

Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found

Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal

These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

  • ICSID annulment proceedings;
  • Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and
  • ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page

The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information

This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Number of cases as respondent State
1 60
Updated as of 31 July 2018

India - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 24 out of 24 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2017 Carissa v. India Carissa Investments LLC v. India India - Mauritius BIT (1998) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment:

Summary:
Pending India Mauritius Data not available Data not available Data not available 50.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2017 Nissan v. India Nissan Motor v. India India - Japan EPA (2011) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: 70 per cent share in Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited, a consortium that built an industrial automotive facility in Chennai, the capital of Tamil Nadu.

Summary: Claims arising out of non-payment of incentives by the Indian State government of Tamil Nadu, which had been allegedly promised to the claimant under the agreement for building of a car plant, signed with the State government in 2008.
70 per cent share in Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited, a consortium that built an industrial automotive facility in Chennai, the capital of Tamil Nadu. Pending India Japan Secondary: C - Manufacturing 29 - Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers Kalicki, J. E. - President

Hobér, K. - Unknown

Khehar, J. S. - Unknown
776.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 2017 Vodafone v. India (II) Vodafone Group Plc and Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Limited v. India (II) India - United Kingdom BIT (1994) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Ownership of an Indian telecoms company.

Summary: Claims arising out of a retrospective transaction tax imposed by the Government over claimants' acquisition of Indian-based Hutchison Whampoa telecoms business.
Ownership of an Indian telecoms company. Pending India United Kingdom Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications McLachlan, C. A. - President

Kaplan, N. - Claimant

Kohen, M. G. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
4 2016 Astro and South Asia Entertainment v. India Astro All Asia Networks and South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited v. India India - United Kingdom BIT (1994)

India - Mauritius BIT (1998)
UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Investment in the Indian satellite TV company Sun Direct.

Summary: Claims arising out of an allegedly unfair and biased criminal investigation by the Government relating to the suspected bribery by the claimants of Indian government officials.
Investment in the Indian satellite TV company Sun Direct. Pending India United Kingdom

Mauritius
Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Leaver, P. - Claimant

Moser, M. J. - President

Reed, L. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
5 2016 RAKIA v. India Ras-AI-Khaimah Investment Authority v. India India - United Arab Emirates BIT (2013) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Shareholding in ANRAK Aluminium Ltd ("ANRAK"), an Indian company incorporated to establish and operate an alumina and aluminium refinery and smelter in the state of Andhra Pradesh in South India.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged non-fulfillment and subsequent cancellation of a memorandum of understanding signed in 2007 between the Government of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh and the claimant. In the memorandum, the state government agreed to direct a state-owned mining company to supply bauxite to ANRAK, a company in the claimant held shares, in order for ANRAK to operate an alumina and aluminium refinery and smelter.
Shareholding in ANRAK Aluminium Ltd ("ANRAK"), an Indian company incorporated to establish and operate an alumina and aluminium refinery and smelter in the state of Andhra Pradesh in South India. Pending India United Arab Emirates Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Name not available - President

Name not available - Claimant

Name not available - Respondent
44.71 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
6 2016 Strategic Infrasol and Thakur Family Trust v. India Strategic Infrasol Foodstuff LLC and The Joint Venture of Thakur Family Trust, UAE with Ace Hospitality Management DMCC, UAE v. India India - United Arab Emirates BIT (2013) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Investments in two real estate projects in Mumbai.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged non-investigation of allegations of forgery and criminal actions by the Indian construction company Shapoorji Pallonji Group, According to the claimants, the latter was initially the claimants’ co-developer of two real estate projects in Mumbai and then allegedly used forged documents to “maliciously” acquire control of the projects. Challenged measures also include the Government’s alleged seizure and confiscation of claimants’ bank deposits pursuant to a court order made against the claimants under money laundering legislation.
Investments in two real estate projects in Mumbai. Pending India United Arab Emirates Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Data not available Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation

Full protection and security, or similar

Customary rules of international law
Pending None None None None None None None
7 2016 Vedanta v. India Vedanta Resources PLC v. India India - United Kingdom BIT (1994) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: 59.9% shareholding in Cairn India Limited, one of the largest oil and gas exploration companies in India.

Summary: Claims arising out of a tax bill of approximately USD 3.29 billion, imposed by the Government on Cairn India Limited in 2015, for the alleged failure to pay taxes on capital gains arising from Cairn’s operations in 2006-2007.
59.9% shareholding in Cairn India Limited, one of the largest oil and gas exploration companies in India. Pending India United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Hwang, M. - President

Spigelman, J. - Claimant

McRae, D. M. - Respondent
3000.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
8 2015 Cairn v. India Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India (PCA Case No. 2016-7) India - United Kingdom BIT (1994) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Interests in subsidiary Cairn UK Holdings Limited and 10 per cent shareholding in Cairn India Limited (CIL), one of the largest oil and gas exploration companies in India.

Summary: Claims arising out of a draft assessment order issued by the Indian Income Tax Department addressed to the claimant’s subsidiary, Cairn UK Holdings Limited, in respect of fiscal year 2006/7 in the amount of USD 1.6 billion plus any applicable interest and penalties; and the alleged prohibition for the claimant to sell its 10 per cent shareholding in Cairn India Limited.
Interests in subsidiary Cairn UK Holdings Limited and 10 per cent shareholding in Cairn India Limited (CIL), one of the largest oil and gas exploration companies in India. Pending India United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Lévy, L. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
1000.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
9 2014 LDA v. India Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. The Republic of India France - India BIT (1997) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in a joint venture with Indian port operator ABG Infralogistics to implement a project aimed at the mechanisation of berths at Haldia in West Bengal.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures by the Indian Government that allegedly prevented the effective implementation of a joint venture related to a port modernization project at Haldia, in the city of Kolkota, in which the claimant held stakes; including allegedly failing to provide protection and security to the project, and to obey court orders concerning the removal of equipment from the port.
Shareholding in a joint venture with Indian port operator ABG Infralogistics to implement a project aimed at the mechanisation of berths at Haldia in West Bengal. Pending India France Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation Kalicki, J. E. - President

Lew, J. D. M. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
11.00 mln USD Data not available Full protection and security, or similar Pending None None None None None None None
10 2014 Vodafone v. India (I) Vodafone International Holdings BV v. India (I) (PCA Case No. 2016-35) India - Netherlands BIT (1995) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of an Indian telecoms company.

Summary: Claims arising out of a retrospective transaction tax imposed by the Government over claimant's acquisition of Indian-based Hutchison Whampoa telecoms business.
Ownership of an Indian telecoms company. Pending India Netherlands Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

Lahoti, R. C. - Respondent (replaced)

Oreamuno Blanco, R. - Respondent

Berman, F. - President
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
11 2013 Deutsche Telekom v. India Deutsche Telekom v. India Germany - India BIT (1995) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Indirect shareholding (20 per cent stake via a Singaporean subsidiary) in the Indian company Devas Multimedia, that had concluded contracts with Antrix -related to the Indian Space Research Organisation- for the launch and operation of two satellites.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's cancellation of a contract concluded with Devas, a company in which the claimant held interests, concerning the provision of broadband services to Indian consumers.
Indirect shareholding (20 per cent stake via a Singaporean subsidiary) in the Indian company Devas Multimedia, that had concluded contracts with Antrix -related to the Indian Space Research Organisation- for the launch and operation of two satellites. Pending India Germany Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Price, D. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending Interim Award dated December 2017 None None None None None None
12 2013 KHML v. India Khaitan Holdings Mauritius Limited v. India India - Mauritius BIT (1998) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Minority shareholding (27 per cent) in Loop Telecom, a telecommunications company that held twenty one 2G licences in India.

Summary: Claims arising out of the cancellation by India's Supreme Court of a telecoms licence held by a company in which the claimant had invested, and its reassignment through a public auction process.
Minority shareholding (27 per cent) in Loop Telecom, a telecommunications company that held twenty one 2G licences in India. Pending India Mauritius Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Xavier, F. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent

Name not available - President
1400.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
13 2012 Devas v. India CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited, and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited v. Republic of India (PCA Case No. 2013-09) India - Mauritius BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in Devas Multimedia Private Limited, an Indian company that had concluded a telecommunication contract with an Indian state entity under the control of the Indian Space Research Organization.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government's cancellation of an agreement to lease capacity in the S-Band, part of the electromagnetic spectrum, for claimants' subsidiary to launch two satellites to provide multimedia services to mobile users across India.
Shareholding in Devas Multimedia Private Limited, an Indian company that had concluded a telecommunication contract with an Indian state entity under the control of the Indian Space Research Organization. Pending India Mauritius Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Lalonde, M. - President

Haigh, D. - Claimant

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant (replaced)

Singh, A. D. - Respondent
1000.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Transfer of funds
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Award on Jurisdiction and Merits dated 25 July 2016 Dissenting Opinion of David R. Haigh Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
14 2012 Naumchenko and others v. India Maxim Naumchenko, Andrey Poluektov and Tenoch Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India (PCA Case No. 2013-23) India - Russian Federation BIT (1994)

Cyprus - India BIT (2002)
UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Majority shareholding in the Indian telecoms company ByCell India.

Summary: Claims arising out of the withdrawal by Indian authorities of an approval to grant frequency allocation licences to claimants' local telecoms company ByCell, after it had previously obtained clearance from India's Foreign Investment Board.
Majority shareholding in the Indian telecoms company ByCell India. Pending India Russian Federation

Cyprus
Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Sepúlveda Amor, B. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
400.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Pending None None None None None None None
15 2010 White Industries v. India White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India Australia - India BIT (1999) UNCITRAL None Investment: Rights under certain contract concluded with a State-owned mining company, a bank guarantee and an ICC award rendered in White Industries' favour.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged judicial delays by the Government of India that left the claimant unable to enforce an ICC award for over nine years concerning a contractual dispute with Coal India, a State-owned mining entity.
Rights under certain contract concluded with a State-owned mining company, a bank guarantee and an ICC award rendered in White Industries' favour. Decided in favour of investor India Australia Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 5 - Mining of coal and lignite Rowley, J. W. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Lau, C. - Respondent
8.70 mln AUD (8.80 mln USD) 4.10 mln AUD (4.10 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Most-favoured nation treatment

Transfer of funds

Other
Most-favoured nation treatment

Other
Final Award dated 30 November 2011 None None None None None None
16 2004 ABN Amro v. India ABN Amro N.V. v. Republic of India India - Netherlands BIT (1995) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India Netherlands Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Schreuer, C. H. - Unknown

Greenwood, C. - Unknown

Name not available - President
42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
17 2004 ANZEF v. India ANZEF Ltd. v. Republic of India India - United Kingdom BIT (1994) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India United Kingdom Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Schreuer, C. H. - Unknown

Greenwood, C. - Unknown

Name not available - President
42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
18 2004 BNP Paribas v. India BNP Paribas v. Republic of India France - India BIT (1997) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India France Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Schreuer, C. H. - Unknown

Greenwood, C. - Unknown

Name not available - President
42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
19 2004 Credit Lyonnais v. India Credit Lyonnais S.A. (now Calyon S.A.) v. Republic of India France - India BIT (1997) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India France Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Schreuer, C. H. - Unknown

Greenwood, C. - Unknown

Name not available - President
42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
20 2004 Credit Suisse v. India Credit Suisse First Boston v. Republic of India India - Switzerland BIT (1997) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India Switzerland Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Schreuer, C. H. - Unknown

Greenwood, C. - Unknown

Name not available - President
42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
21 2004 Erste Bank v. India Erste Bank Der Oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG v. Republic of India Austria - India BIT (1999) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India Austria Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Data not available 42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
22 2004 Offshore Power v. India Offshore Power Production C.V., Travamark Two B.V., EFS India-Energy B.V., Enron B.V., and Indian Power Investments B.V. v. Republic of India India - Netherlands BIT (1995) UNCITRAL None Investment: Majority shareholding, through subsidiary company, of the Indian Dabhol Power Company.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent alleged failure to protect claimants' investment in the Dabhol power plant project in India, which resulted in significant losses to the claimants' financing of the failed project.
Majority shareholding, through subsidiary company, of the Indian Dabhol Power Company. Settled India Netherlands Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Lalonde, M. - Unknown

Cooke, L. - Unknown

Name not available - President
4000.00 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
23 2004 Standard Chartered Bank v. India Standard Chartered Bank v. Republic of India India - United Kingdom BIT (1994) UNCITRAL None Investment: Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of respondent's alleged failure to protect the investor's loans in the Dabhol combined cycle power plant project in India, the default of which resulted in significant losses to the claimant's financing of the failed project.
Creditor of loans associated with the financing of the Dabhol energy project in Maharashtra, India. Settled India United Kingdom Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Schreuer, C. H. - Unknown

Greenwood, C. - Unknown

Name not available - President
42.80 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
24 2003 Bechtel v. India Bechtel Enterprises Holdings, Inc. and GE Structured Finance (GESF) v. The Government of India India - Mauritius BIT (1998) UNCITRAL None Investment: Shareholding in local corporations established to operate the Dabhol power project in the state of Maharashtra, India.

Summary: Claims arising out of an alleged reversal in the energy policy of the local government between the beginning of the power project in which the claimants invested and its intended consummation, as a result of political change in the Government.
Shareholding in local corporations established to operate the Dabhol power project in the state of Maharashtra, India. Settled India Mauritius Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Data not available 1200.00 mln USD 160.00 mln USD Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available None None None None None