King Solomon might have split the baby had he not realised the identity of its parent in time. Judges and arbitrators – some 3,000 years later – might be quicker to identify a company’s real group structure, but are they any better in splitting parent from child-subsidiary?
A typical corporate veil piercing case [...] read more »
Archive for the 'International Courts' Category
Piercing the Corporate Veil and Enforcement
More Interesting Anti-Suit Injunction Cases
Anti-suit injunctions have certainly received their fair share of air time (and some would say more) as a result of the West Tankers debate – about which this blog entry is not. Now that all eyes are on anti-suit injunctions, it is interesting to keep an eye on how the cases post West Tankers [...] read more »
State Responsibility for Contract Breaches: Possible Insights from the U.S- Mexican General Claims Commission
The United States and Mexico signed the General Claims Convention of September 8, 1923 and thereby constituted the U.S.-Mexico General Claims Commission.* The Commission was asked to resolve all claims by U.S. and Mexican citizens against the other government for loss or damage to their person or property interests arising out of the period [...] read more »
The Strange Case of Expert Legal Opinions in Investment Treaty Arbitrations
I have always found the submission of expert legal opinions on matters of international law to investment treaty tribunals rather odd. Why are expert opinions needed and what is their status? To begin, the opinion is submitted to an international arbitration tribunal often comprising leading public international lawyers (and sometimes current or former judges of [...] read more »
Israel’s Settlement of UN Claim Involving Gaza
International claims settlement involves a number of challenges that are relevant for the international arbitration community, including fact-finding and burden of proof, principles of State responsibility, treaty interpretation and damages under international law. One recent development of note involves Israel’s recent settlement of a claim brought by the United Nations.
In July 2009, [...] read more »
The Question of Admissibility of Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitration
In my last post I questioned whether investor misconduct (such as fraud, illegality and corruption) is invariably a jurisdictional issue. This post focuses on the use of admissibility as a filtering mechanism to screen investor claims. Although it has been suggested by at least one investment treaty tribunal that the concept of admissibility does not [...] read more »
Recent Comments