Argentina published on 01 jan 2015 by brill nijhoff. Argentina points to no evidence that its objection was of the consent variety. Practitioners and professors of international arbitration law in support of the respondent bg group plc v. Related knowledge below are resources relating to bg group v. Metrogas is a natural gas distribution company incorporated in argentina. Bg, a british corporation located at 100 thames valley park drive, reading berkshire, rg6 1pt, in the united kingdom. The treaty also includes, in article 8, cer tain provisions for resolving any disputes that might arise between a signatory country and an investor, who is not a party to the agreement. Bg group is also a longstanding member of the voluntary. Bg group plc was a british multinational oil and gas company headquartered in reading, united kingdom. Bg group contended that the new laws violated the treaty by either effecting an expropriation of bg group s investment or by not treating bg group fairly and equitably. Claimant and the republic of argentina respondent final award 24 december 2007 before the tribunal comprising. The arbitral panel nonetheless ruled it had jurisdiction, found argentina had violated the treaty, and awarded bg group.
At that time, argentina s regulatory framework provided. Bg group claimed that argentina s new laws and practices violated the treaty, which forbids the expropriation of investments and requires each nation to give fair and equitable treatment to investors from the other. Bg group, plc, a british corporation a nd investor in argentina gas companies pursuant to the treaty, invoked the arbitration clause without first filing a claim in th e argentine courts. Though the decision favored continued growth of international investment, the reasoning was far too narrowly construed. Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Invoking article 8, bg group sought arbitration, which the parties sited in washington, d. Bouchenaki about tdm tdm transnational dispute management. The company was privatized under the margaret thatcher government in the 1980s. On the 15th february 2016, bg group became a wholly owned subsidiary of royal dutch shell, following shareholders from both companies voting in favour of the acquisition. Argentina had denied bg group fair and equal treatment, and rendered its award in favour of bg group.
Arbitral praeliminaria reflections on the distinction between. See case mapped in subject navigator on investorstate lawguide. As a result, this 2015 sustainability report is a shorter report than the 2014 publication. Bg has a direct and an indirect ownership interest in metrogas s.
Supreme court provided guidance on whether a united states. Us court vacates award against argentina bg group plc v. On the merits, the arbitration panel agreed with argentina that it had not expropriated bg group s investment, but also found that argentina had denied bg group fair and equitable treatment. Supreme court decision, march 5, 2014 by laura ghitti.
Argentina united kingdom bit 1990 nationality of the parties. After defaulting on its debt and losing a federal collection action, argentina claimed that its foreign assets were immune from discovery. On 15 february 2016, the entire issued and to be issued share capital of bg group plc was acquired by royal dutch shell plc. In this issue the supreme court decides bg group plc v. Prior to the takeover, bg group was listed on the london stock exchange and was a.
With effect from that date, transco plus bg technology, bg property, the leasing group and bg s energy services business were all transferred to lattice group and we commenced business as the new bg group. Supreme court opinion regarding foreign sovereign immunity. Substantive and procedural arbitrability in ad hoc. In its first case involving international arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty, bg group plc v. In bg group the british investor failed to litigate its claim first in an argentinian court, as required in the u. Argentina,1 the supreme court made a critical mistake by its application of us contract law principles to a bilateral investment treaty between the united kingdom and argentina.
Circuit reversed and vacated the award, finding that there was not clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended for an arbitrator to decide whether preconditions for arbitration were met or could be excused. On the one hand, bg group seems to involve a gateway determination of whether argentina is bound by the arbitration clause in light of bg s failure to first bring suit in an argentine court, which is typically reserved for courts absent clear and unmistakable evidence. Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner bg group plc. Argentina sought to vacate the award under section 10a4. Nothing in this presentation should be construed as a profit forecast and no part of this presentation constitutes, or shall be taken to constitute, an invitation or inducement to invest in bg group plc or any other entity, and must not be relied upon in any way in connection with any investment decision. A us appellate court has vacated an award against argentina in a decision that may give investors pause before attempting to bypass treaty provisions requiring that they first pursue their claims in the host states courts. United kingdom company, and the republic of argentina, regarding the impact of several emergency measures taken by argentina in the aftermath of its 2001 economic crisis on the value of bg group s investment in metrogas, an argentine gas distribution company. Focusing on recent developments in the area of investment arbitration and dispute management, regulation, treaties, judicial and arbitral cases, voluntary guidelines, tax and contracting. Later, in the midst of an economic crisis, argentina enacted an emergency law that required investors to collect tariff revenues in argentinian pesos at a rate of one peso per dollar.
Argentina will hand over portions of the sum to royal dutch shell plcs bg group plc and kinder morgan inc. In brief, bg group claimed that argentina s new laws and regulatory practices had violated provisions of the bit that amounted to an expropriation and that argentina had breached the standards of treatment provided in article 2. Stay uptodate with the latest topics from the firm. Court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit in july 2018. Bg group, plc, a british corporation and investor in argentina gas companies pursuant to the treaty, invoked the arbitration clause without first filing a claim in the argentine courts. Email subscriptions rss feed all perspectives rss feed news only alumni. But argentina later amended the law, changing among other things thecalculation basis to pesos. Argentina bilateral investment treaty bit, but the arbitral tribunal found the local litigation requirement inapplicable and ruled for the investor on the merits. Republic of argentina, decided march 5, 2014, the u. Later, in the midst of an economic crisis, argentina enacted an emergency law that required investors to collect tariff revenues in argentinian pesos at a. At the time of bg group s investment, argentine law provided that gas tariffs would be calculated in u. Discontinued operations power generation following the disposal of the group s power stations in the usa and uk earlier in the year, bg group announced in. The materials available on this page were either published by bg group plc prior to the acquisition, or relate to the results and conduct of bg prior to the acquisition.
On march 5, 2014, the united states supreme court, in bg group plc v. In 2003, bg group sought arbitration under the treaty. In 1990, bg group plc bg group, a british corporation, formed part to a consortium that had a majority interest in metrogas, an argentine gas distribution company that held a 35year exclusive license to distribute natural gas in buenos aires. The republic of argentina argentina, the petitioner in this case, seeks to vacate or modify an arbitral award the award rendered against it and in favor of respondent bg group plc bg group under the federal arbitration act, 9 u. If so, please send them as a word or pdf file, or, if available, as a hyperlink. Argentina for the promotion and protection of investments, entered into on 11 december 1990 and the uncitral arbitration rules. Republic of argentina why you should care about this sleeper case by brodie m. Argentina, the us supreme court has further complicated the prob. Bg group s commitment to human rights is outlined in our business principles and human rights policy. This omission is notable because argentina knew how to phrase its arguments before the arbitrators in terms of consent. Substantive and procedural arbitrability in ad hoc investorstate arbitration bg group v. More than 150 years after the founding of our firm, sidley today comprises a diverse group of legal professionals from many cultures who are dedicated to teamwork, collaboration and. Republic of argentina syllabus on the merits, the panel found that argentina had not expropriated bg group s investment but had denied bg group fair and equitable treatment. In the early 1990s, bg group plc bg, a british company, made a major investment in argentina s natural gas industry.
885 971 681 1091 1400 555 770 973 505 1241 911 1003 354 848 1481 45 136 1459 153 471 1148 1554 1477 392 144 589 941 673 160 1520 1283 811 529 281 223 1400 301 399 634 92 148 938 1194 1496 735 1449