The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Category: International Trade and Investment

  • Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part I)

    Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part I)

    BY PRANAV GUPTA AND AASHI SHARMA, SECOND- YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PUNJAB

    Introduction

    The recent cases of Lava International Ltd. and Tomorrow Sales Agency have reignited the confusions regarding the concept of Security for Costs (‘SfC’) in India.Gary B. Born[i] defines SfC as “an interim measure designed to protect a respondent against the risk of non-payment of a future costs award, particularly where there is reason to doubt the claimant’s ability or willingness to comply with such an award.”

    The authors in this manuscript shall wade through the confusions raised in the above cases. For that, firstly, we try to conceptually understand the concept of SfC by distinguishing it from the other situated similar concepts, while also emphasizing on the legal provisions governing them. Secondly, we analyze the concept of SfC in light of the leading international investment and commercial arbitration practices. Lastly, the authors propose a two-tier solution to the problem of SfC in India building on the international practices with certain domestic modifications.

    Security for Costs: Concept and Law
    1. Understanding Security for Costs:

    The concept of SfC is fundamentally different from that of ‘securing the amount in dispute’, as the latter is a measure to ensure the enforceability of the arbitral award by securing the party with whole or some part of the amount claimed or granted. section 9(1)(ii)(b) and section 17(1)(ii)(b) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘The Arbitration Act’) regulates the regime for ‘securing the amount in dispute’ as an interim measure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arcelor Mittal and Nimbus Communications clarified that section 9 permits securing the ‘amount in dispute’ on a case by case basis. Further, SfC is also distinct from ‘Recovery of Costs’, as ‘costs’ are recovered post the declaration of award and is addressed by section 31A of The Arbitration Act. 

    B. Security for Costs and Section 9: A Legal Void:

    While, The Arbitration Act deals with the similarly situated aspects of SfC as shown above, it remains silent on a provision for SfC, a gap that remains unaddressed even by the 2015 Amendment and The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. A landmark ruling with respect to SfC was delivered in the J.S. Ocean Liner case, by ordering to deposit USD 47,952 as an amount for recovery of legal costs. The court relied on section 12(6) of the English Arbitration Act 1950, akin to section 9(1)(ii)(b) of The Arbitration Act, to award SfC as an interim measure in this case. However, this harmonious interpretation was later rejected in the cases of Intertoll Co. and Thar Camps, by observing that under sub-clause (b) of section 9(1)(ii), only ‘amount in dispute’ can be secured and not the SfC. Hence, The Arbitration Act needs a reform with respect to the provision concerning SfC.

    International Precedents concerning Security for Costs
    1. Investment Arbitration Insights:

    The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’) Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’), being the world’s primary institution, administers the majority of all the international investment cases. Till the 2022 Amendment to The ICSID Arbitration Rules (‘ICSID Rules’), even ICSID Rules were silent on this concept of SfC, however now Rule 53 of the same Rules contains the express provision for awarding SfC by The Tribunal. As the newly introduced Rule 53 is in its nascent stage with no extensive judicial precedents[ii] on it yet, the authors analyze the cases prior to the 2022 Amendment to understand the mechanism for granting SfC.

    Prior to the 2022 Amendment, SfC was granted as a provisional measure[iii] under Article 47 of The ICSID Convention and Rule 39 of The ICSID Rules as observed in the cases of RSM v. Grenada[iv] and Riverside Coffee.[v] However, in the Ipek[vi] case, the Tribunal permitted the granting of SfC only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.[vii] The high threshold[viii] was reaffirmed in Eskosol v. Italy[ix], where even the bankruptcy didn’t sustain an order for SfC. Further, in EuroGas[x] case, financial difficulty and Third-Party Funding (’TPF’) arrangement were considered as common practices, unable to meet the threshold of ‘exceptional circumstances’.

    Finally, in the RSM v. Saint Lucia[xi] case, the high threshold[xii] was met as the Claimant was ordered to pay US$ 750,000 as SfC on account of its proven history of non-compliance along with the financial constraints, and TPF involvement. In the same case, The Tribunal established a three-prong test[xiii] for awarding SfC emphasizing on the principles of ‘Exceptional Circumstances, Necessity, and Urgency’,[xiv] with the same being followed in the further cases of Dirk Herzig[xv] and Garcia Armas.[xvi] Further, The Tribunal added a fourth criterion of ‘Proportionality’[xvii] to the above three-prong test in the landmark case of Kazmin v. Latvia.[xviii]

    The Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) is another prominent institution, with nearly half its cases involving Investment-State arbitrations. The PCA resorts to Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to award SfC as seen in the Nord Stream 2 case.[xix] In Tennant Energy v. Canada[xx] and South American Silver,[xxi] the PCA applied the same test, devised in the Armas case to grant SfC.[xxii] Similar approaches have been adopted by the local tribunals, including Swiss Federal Tribunal and Lebanese Arbitration Center.[xxiii]

    [i] Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021); See also Maria Clara Ayres Hernandes, ‘Security for Costs in The ICSID System: The Schrödinger’s Cat of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (Uppsala Universitet, 2019) <https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1321675/FULLTEXT01.pdf&gt; accessed 17 June 2025.

    [ii] International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, The First Year of Practice Under the ICSID 2022 Rules (30 June 2023).

    [iii] Lighthouse Corporation Pty Ltd and Lighthouse Corporation Ltd, IBC v. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures) (13 February 2016) para 53.

    [iv] Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Tribunal’s Decision on Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs (14 October 2010) para 5.16.

    [v] Riverside Coffee, LLC v. Republic of Nicaragua, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/16, Procedural Order No. 7 (Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (20 December 2023) para 63.

    [vi] Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18, Procedural Order No. 7 (Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (14 October 2019) para 8.

    [vii] BSG Resources Limited (in administration), BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL v. Republic of Guinea (I),ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, Procedural Order No. 3 (Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures) (25 November 2015) para 46.

    [viii] Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Award (6 August 2019) para 78.

    [ix] Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures (12 April 2017) para 23.

    [x] EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Parties’ Request for Provisional Measures) (23 June 2015) para 123.

    [xi] RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs (13 August 2014) para 75.

    [xii] Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures Relating to Security for Costs (21 January 2016) para 7.

    [xiii] Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Decision on Applicant’s Request for Provisional Measures (7 May 2012) para 13.

    [xiv] BSG Resources Limited (n vii) para 21.

    [xv] Dirk Herzig as Insolvency Administrator over the Assets of Unionmatex Industrieanlagen GmbH v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/35, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Security for Costs and the Claimant’s Request for Security for Claim (27 January 2020) para 20.

    [xvi] Domingo García Armas, Manuel García Armas, Pedro García Armas and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Procedural Order No. 9 Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures (20 June 2018) para 27.

    [xvii] Transglobal Green Energy (n xii) para 29.

    [xviii] Eugene Kazmin v. Republic of Latvia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/5, Procedural Order No. 6 (Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (13 August 2020) para 24.

    [xix] Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 11 (14 July 2023) para 91.

    [xx] Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 4 (Interim Measures) (27 February 2020) para 58.

    [xxi] South American Silver Limited v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10 (Security for Costs) (11 January 2016) para 59.

    [xxii] Domingo García Armas (n xvi).

    [xxiii] Claimant(s) v. Respondent(s) ICC Case No. 15218 of 2008.

  • Navigating RBI’s Revised Framework for Downstream Investments by FOCCs

    Navigating RBI’s Revised Framework for Downstream Investments by FOCCs

    BY PURNIMA RATHI, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT AT SYBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

    On January 20, 2025, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) released a comprehensive revision of the Master Direction on Foreign Investment in India (‘Master Direction’). The update represents a landmark regulatory revision, particularly for Foreign Owned and/or Controlled Companies (‘FOCCs’) pursuing downstream investments. The updated Master Direction has attempted to resolve a number of ambiguities, align regulatory treatment with the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (‘FDI’) Policy, 2020 and the Foreign Exchange (Non- Debt_ Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’) and thus, stream lining the compliance requirements for both investors and companies.

    The blog shall analyse key regulatory changes made through the Master Direction and its effects on downstream investments made by FOCCs. This analysis is made by comparing the recent update to the earlier versions of the Master Direction.

    WHAT ARE FOCCs AND DOWNSTREAM INVESTMENTS ?

    To understand the significance of the Master Direction, it is first necessary to understand the meaning and the context in which FOCCs and downstream investments operate. A FOCC is defined in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’) and the NDI Rules as an Indian entity that is:

    •  Owned by non-resident entities (more than 50% shareholding); or

    •  Controlled by non-residents (in the sense of a non-resident entity or person is empowered to appoint a majority of directors or is empowered to influence decisions which are deemed to be strategic business decisions).

    Downstream investment is defined collectively, in this context, as an investment in capital instruments (equity shares, compulsorily convertible preference shares, etc.) made by said FOCC in another Indian entity. It is essentially an investment made by a company already partly or wholly owned by foreign investors, into another Indian entity.

    Analysis of Key Changes

    The updated Master Direction has important amendments which are aimed at reducing compliance complexities, providing legal clarity, and allowing flexibility with transaction structures. Analysed below are the key revisions from the Master Direction:

    1. Consistency with General FDI Norms

    The most important change is the explicit consistency of downstream investments by FOCCs with general FDI norms. Downstream investments are treated as a different investment category and require separate compliance obligations.  However, now it requires that FOCCs must comply with the same entry routes (automatic or government), sectoral restrictions, price restrictions, and reporting requirements as any direct foreign investment investor. The guiding principle of “what cannot be done directly, shall not be done indirectly” has the intention to place downstream investments on an equal level with FDI.

    This is particularly advantageous in sectors where the automatic route is available and removes unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. For example, if a FOCC is investing in an Indian startup that provides services to the technology sector, they may now invest and treat it the same as a direct foreign investment provided that the sector cap and conditions are adhered to.

    2. Share Swaps Approved

    Another important change is the recognition of share swap transactions by FOCCs. Before the recent change, it was unclear whether share swaps were permitted for FOCCs at all, and companies tended to either seek informal clarifications or err on the side of caution.

    The updated direction explicitly provides that FOCCs can issue or acquire shares in lieu of shares of another company (either Indian or foreign) subject to pricing guidelines and sectoral limitations. This is an important facilitative measure for cross-border mergers, joint ventures, and acquisition deals where share swaps are the predominant form of consideration.

    This reform enhances transactional flexibility, encourages capital growth and will reduce friction in structuring deals between Indian FOCCs and foreign entities, thereby promoting greater integration with global capital market. 

    3. Permissibility of Deferred Consideration

    The RBI now formally recognizes deferred consideration structures such as milestone-triggered payments, escrows, or holdbacks. However, they are still governed by the ’18-25 Rule’, which allows 25% of total consideration to be deferred, which must be paid within 18 months of execution of the agreement. This represents a pragmatic acceptance of the commercial acknowledgment that not all transactions are settled upon completion.

    RBI shall have to give additional clarifications as the Master Direction still does not specify the extent to which provisions are applicable to downstream investments in comparison to the FDIs.

    4. Limitations on the Utilisation of Domestic Borrowings

    In an effort to safeguard the integrity of foreign investment channels and to deter round-tripping, or indirect foreign investment through Indian funds, the RBI continues to restrict FOCCs from utilising domestic borrowings for downstream investment. This implies that FOCCs can only downstream invest with foreign funds introduced through equity investments or through internal accruals. The restriction aims that downstream investments are made through genuine foreign capital introduced in the country through abroad, rather than through domestic borrowings.

    Practically this means that if the FOCC receives a USD 5 million injection from the parent organization abroad, then they can utilize such funds for downstream investment, but not if they were to borrow the same amount in INR through a loan from an Indian financial institution. This maintains investor confidence and enhances transparency in capital flows.

    5. Modified Pricing Guidelines for Transactions

    The revised framework reiterated pricing guidelines in accordance with the different types of company:

    •  For listed companies: The pricing must comply with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) guidelines,

    •  By unlisted companies: The price cannot be lower than the fair market value determined by internationally accepted pricing methodologies.

    Additionally, in all rights issues involving non-residents, if the allotment is greater than the investor’s allotted entitlement, price has to comply with these guidelines. In this case, the rights issue would protect minority shareholders and mitigate the dilution that would occur by no listings from unlisted companies.

    6. Reporting and Compliance via Form DI

    An excellent innovation is the new compliance requirement of filing on Form DI within 30 days of the date an Indian company becomes a FOCC or makes a downstream investment. This will assist the RBI in maintaining regulatory visibility and better tracking of foreign investment in India. Companies will have to implement stricter internal compliance mechanisms and timely reporting as failure to do so could result in penalties under FEMA. The RBI’s emphasis on transparency reflects a continuing trend toward digitization and live reporting of capital flows by Indian regulators.

    7. Clearer Application of the Reporting Forms (FC-GPR, FC-TRS, DI)

    In addition, the RBI has further clarified the documents to use the following forms:

    • Form FC-GPR: is for reporting the issuance of shares by an Indian entity to a FOCC. • Form FC-TRS: is for any transfer of shares involving FOCC as the non-resident and between residents and non-residents.

    • Form DI: is for downstream investments made by FOCC into any other Indian entity.

    This clarity will help eliminate confusion around these procedures and synchronize the reporting regime of the RBI with the reporting systems of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) and SEBI. FOCC should implement strong internal controls to monitor and track when these filings will become due.

    8. Classification of FOCCs based on Share Movement

    The new regulations will also provide clarity on how the status of a FOCC will influence a regulatory classification. Specifically:

    •  if a FOCC receives shares from an Indian entity, it will be treated as a ‘Person Resident Outside India’; and

    •  if it transfers shares to an Indian entity, it will be deemed to be domestic in nature but needs to comply with the repatriation norms.

    These classifications have an important bearing on the route and pricing of transactions especially in exits or complex internal restructuring transactions. Through these classifications, RBI intends to clarify the confusion from mischaracterizing transactions and reducing risk for the investors in the event of any enforcement action.

    Conclusion

    The amendments to the Master Direction represent a measured and thoughtful change in the foreign investment regulatory framework in India. The RBI has set the tone in favour of enabling policy predictability and investor confidence by clarifying FOCC structures’ downstream investment norms to be consistent with FDI, allowing for more sophisticated structures like share-swap transactions and deferred consideration, and imposing effective operational compliance requirements. Going forward, these refinements have set the foundation for deeper capital integration and increased investor trust in India’s FDI regime.

  • Taxing the Non-existent: Transfer Pricing of AMP Expenses

    Taxing the Non-existent: Transfer Pricing of AMP Expenses

    BY YARABHAM AKSHIT REDDY, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT HNLU, RAIPUR
    Introduction

    The treatment of Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP‘) expenditure has been a contentious issue under the Transfer Pricing (TP) Regulations as outlined in sections 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘ITA‘). The debate centers on whether such expenses constitute transactions between Associated Enterprises (AEs) requiring compensation or qualify as ordinary business expenses. Recently, in the case of PCIT v Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court ruled that the existence of an International Transaction must be established before proceeding with the benchmarking analysis of AMP expenses and rejected the application of Bright Line Test (‘BLT‘) for inferring the International Transaction. As per section 92B (1) of ITA, an International Transaction is “a transaction entered into between two or more AE where at least one of them is a non-resident by way of agreement, arrangement or action – whether formalized in writing or otherwise. Since, there is no statutory framework governing the AMP expenses, the concept has evolved through a series of judicial pronouncements. This ruling came as a relief to the taxpayers who are engaged in marketing intangibles and could claim deductions for such expenses under section 37 of ITA.

    In light of the above, the article critically analyzes the judgement in two prongs, viz, firstly, by understanding the concept of the BLT for determining the existence of International Transactions, and Secondly, through exploring the alternatives in determining the TP adjustments of AMP expenses and prevent unfair tax assessments by revenue authorities.

    Behind the Judgement: Key Legal Takeaways

    In the present case, the assessee (Beam India Holding Ltd) is one of the companies of Beam Global Group which is engaged in the manufacture, sale, marketing and trading of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (‘IMFL‘). This IMFL is sold under the brand name and license given by Fortune Brands which is stated to be the ultimate parent company. The core issue before the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO‘) was whether AMP expenses incurred by the assessee constitute an International Transaction as per section 92B of ITA.

    The TPO applied the BLT and determined that the excessive expenditure constitutes an International Transaction as the same has benefited the legal owner as a result of brand building and commenced benchmarking analysis. As a result, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT‘) which ruled in his favour by establishing that before initiating a TP Adjustment, the TPO must establish the presence of an International Transaction with tangible and concrete evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue authorities challenged the decision before the Delhi High Court (HC).

    The Delhi HC upheld the decision given by ITAT by stating that a mere relationship between two AEs cannot be satisfactory evidence for the presence of an International Transaction and relied on Maruti Suzuki India Pvt Ltd v. CIT, which established that mere rendering of service by one party to another would not constitute a transaction unless the same is based on mutual arrangement or agreement as per Section 92B (1) of ITA. Further, the court relied on Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Private Limited v. CIT (‘Sony Ericsson‘) and rejected the BLT as an objective criterion for establishing AMP expenses as International Transactions.

    From Acceptance to Rejection: Tracing the path of BLT

    The concept of BLT originated in the case of DHL Corporation & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue before the US Tax Court. According to this test, if a subsidiary AE incurs significant costs in the exploitation of an intangible brand name and that expenses exceed the bright line limit of routine expenditure (costs incurred by the other comparable entities), then such entity is deemed to have economic ownership over that brand name. It then becomes an obligation for the parent AE to reimburse the subsidiary AE for non-routine expenditures incurred in brand building. In the absence of any statutory provision to compensate the subsidiary AE for the benefits drawn by foreign AE, the need for transfer pricing adjustment arises. The revenue authorities apply this test in determining the arms’ length price of this perceived transaction.

    In the Indian Context, the test was first applied in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v ACIT wherein the Delhi HC determined that AMP Expenses would constitute an International Transaction if they exceed the expenses incurred by comparable independent entities placed in similar circumstances. Further, in LG Electronics India Private Limited vs. ACIT (‘LG Electronics‘), the ITAT ruled that proportionately higher expenses incurred in the creation of marketing intangibles would constitute an International Transaction.

    Subsequently, LG Electronics was overruled to the extent that excessive AMP expenses incurred by domestic AEs would constitute an International Transaction in Sony Ericsson case. The court held that BLT would not be an appropriate method as it lacks statutory mandate and was not envisioned in ITA or Income Tax Rules. Moreover, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi HC judgment in CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd which invalidated the BLT test, thereby establishing it as a binding precedent.

    It is contended that the application of the BLT method would risk undermining statutory framework of ITA. Such an approach would introduce a novel concept that lacks any formal recognition, thereby creating interpretative inconsistencies and potential conflicts with the established methodologies. section 92C of ITA outlines an exhaustive list of methods for the computation of AMP and must not lay down any other guidelines. The existence of International Transactions must be established based on actual or concrete evidence and such a qualitative determination cannot serve as the basis for their recognition. Despite subsequent High Court rulings rejecting BLT, Revenue Authorities are increasingly relying on BLT for a regressive analysis of AMP expenses to determine an International Transaction.

    Critical Analysis
    • Prima Facie establishment of International Transaction:

    The judgement is a step in the right direction as it places the burden of proof on the revenue authorities to prove the existence of International Transactions based on tangible or concrete evidence between the domestic AE and its foreign AE. This position has been affirmed in CIT v EKL Appliance Enterprise Ltd, wherein the TPO has been directed to “examine the International Transaction as he finds it and not to make its existence a matter of surmises.” This would reduce arbitrary assessments faced by Indian AEs and force the Revenue authorities to reassess their approach towards transfer pricing of AMP Expenses.

    • BLT cannot be an appropriate method for AMP Expenses:

    The level and nature of AMP spending depend on a variety of business factors like market share, market environment, contractual mechanisms, management policies, etc. It varies across industries and also differs within the same industry as it could be company-specific. In the absence of a clear statutory scheme, reliance cannot be placed on BLT to decide AMP expenses by mere comparison with other similarly situated entities. Such fact-specific cases necessitate careful consideration of multiple factors- whether the AE operates a licensed manufacturer, distributor or marketing agent, the duration of contracts whether long-term or short-term, extent of risk undertaken. The Delhi ITAT in BMW Motors India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT, established that there is no straightjacket formula to determine transfer pricing matters of AMP expenses and such a fact-extensive exercise requires a detailed Functional Analysis to characterize transactions appropriately and understand the business models.

    Avoiding TP Adjustment of AMP Expenses: Assessing the Possible Alternatives

    Until the legislature lays down clear guidelines for determining International Transactions or the Supreme Court resolves the ambiguity, BLT cannot be used as it is inherently susceptible to arbitrariness and operational challenges. In due time, revenue authorities must mandate Indian entities and their foreign AEs to maintain detailed documentation of Functions performed, assets employed and risk undertaken (‘FAR Analysis’) while performing AMP functions. This would help in keeping track of purposes for which expenditure is undertaken, reasons for excessive expenses and the existence of any implicit arrangement or agreement.

    OECD and the Australian Tax Office (‘ATO’) also lay down guidelines for preventing profit shifting due to excessive AMP expenditure. It prescribes that any assessment undertaken by the revenue authorities must look for reduced product/service prices or lower royalty rates paid by domestic AE to foreign AE, profit splitting agreements between them and any provision for compensation for excessive AMP by foreign AE. Since, these guidelines concern distributors or marketers, any legislature enacting these rules must also lay down for licensed manufacturers.

    Another alternative would be Advance Pricing Agreements (‘APAs’). These are pre-negotiated agreements between revenue authorities and the assessee, providing for fixed methods of transfer pricing over a specific period and decides the ALP. These APAs will determine what kind of transactions will be covered by them and what methods would be used for TP Adjustments. AMP Expenses could be covered under these APAs which would help in reducing tax litigations and boost foreign investments in India. Since this issue requires a thorough analysis of fact-specific cases, it must be carried out with a fixed/standardized methods for a fair and accurate determination.

    Conclusion

    This judgement reinforces that excessive AMP expenses incurred by the assessee could not qualify as International Transaction as the creation of marketing intangibles increases his own sales and benefits his business. The burden of proof is on revenue authorities to prove the presence of International Transactions with tangible or concrete evidence. Rejection of BLT emphasizes the need for a more objective/ standardized methods to ensure fair TP Assessments, thereby protecting companies from arbitrary and unwarranted tax adjustments. Until legislative clarity is provided in this regard, proper and detailed documentation, APAs and FAR Analysis could bring clarity and consistency in handling AMP-related TP issues. Such a fair and balanced approach will go a long way in reducing litigations and create a predictable tax environment in India.

  • Navigating Uncharted Territories: ICSID Tribunal’s Power to Remove Counsel

    Navigating Uncharted Territories: ICSID Tribunal’s Power to Remove Counsel

    BY AARyA PARIHAR, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT RMLNLU, LUCKNOW

    Introduction

    The role of a lawyer is extremely crucial in an arbitration proceeding. The right to effective legal representation of one’s choice is recognized explicitly in various international instruments, like Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a right is equally essential in investor-state arbitration proceedings, where it may form part of the due process expectations of the parties to the proceedings with serious transgressions from the principle, even potentially constitute a ground to challenge the award itself. The ICSID Convention, Rules, and Regulations do not expressly address the authority of ICSID Tribunals to permit the withdrawal of legal counsel or to compel their continued participation in the proceedings (against their wishes). This post discusses the authority of ICSID Tribunals to exclude or require the presence of particular counsel in a dispute. The post then discusses the existing arbitral decisions on this issue to examine the contours of ICSID Tribunals’ powers concerning these matters.

    Do ICSID Tribunals Have the Power to Remove/Exclude Counsel?

    ICSID Tribunals are formed to resolve treaty disputes between contracting parties. Every dispute has its own Tribunal with separate procedural rules that disputing parties agree on. Arbitration’s inherent nature of being party-centric, where parties’ autonomy is given primacy, leads to divergent procedural practices. Additionally, the non-binding nature or lack of precedential character of ICSID awards over other ICSID Tribunals leads to differing awards. Thus, it is essential that before moving to ICSID Tribunals, assistance shall be taken from the federal courts of the United States, who have often used their power to decide upon the issue of counsel resignation.

    The U.S. Court in May v. Seibert enquired about the existence of good cause, which depends upon the facts and circumstances of every case. Simply put, there is no straitjacket formula to when a counsel can legally stop their representation. It largely depends upon the peculiar factual matrix of every case and the application of mind by the judge presiding over it.

    In the realm of ICSID, only a few Tribunals were called upon to decide upon the issue of counsel resignation or removal of counsel. Five publicly available awards are from the Hrvatska Tribunal, Rompetrol Tribunal, Edmond Khudyan Tribunal, Fraport Tribunal, and Theodore David Einarsson Tribunal. These five orders from five different Tribunals delve into the removal of counsel. In all these five decisions, the Tribunal found its power to remove counsel under Article 44 of the ICSID Convention, providing residuary power to the Tribunals. It empowers the Tribunals to decide upon any question of procedure which is not explicitly covered under the ICSID Convention, Rules, and Regulations.

    Due to the heavy amount of cross-referencing/quoting done in these decisions, discussing them separately and conjointly is essential. The post attempts to cull out only the important dictum from these decisions, which is required to facilitate analysis in the present article.

    Hrvatska Tribunal

    In the Hrvatska award, the removal of counsel was warranted because of his apparent connection with one of the arbitrators, which might have caused bias. The Tribunal found that the right to effective representation is pitted against the right to effective and unbiased proceedings. After due deliberation, the Tribunal found itself empowered to rule on this issue by virtue of Article 44 of the ICSID Convention.

    Rompetrol Tribunal

    The Respondent in the Rompetrol decision cited the Hrvatska decision as the sole authority to bolster their argument regarding ICSID Tribunals’ authority to exclude counsel from the proceedings. The Tribunal found it has inherent power to exclude counsels under Article 44 of the ICSID Convention but refused to exercise the same in the present dispute. According to this Tribunal, this power should only be used in exceptionally uncommon circumstances where the integrity of the whole proceeding is in question/dispute.

    Edmond and Fraport Tribunals

    In the decision rendered in the Edmond dispute, the Tribunal reiterated that it has the power to exclude the participation of counsel under Article 44 of the ICSID Convention. In this case, both parties agreed to this power of the Tribunal without any disagreements. The Tribunal again emphasized using this power sparingly and only in certain circumstances. It should be used only to protect the proceedings’ integrity and fairness and to ensure the parties’ equality. The Tribunal heavily quoted from the Fraport decision, reaching a similar conclusion. The Fraport Tribunal also imposed the necessary contours of “ensuring fair conduct of the proceedings” while exercising its power under Article 44 of the ICSID Convention.

    Theodore Einarsson Tribunal

    Another crucial decision in this aspect is of the Theodore Einarsson Tribunal, where the Tribunal while deliberating on the removal of a counsel, outlined that the ICSID Tribunals do not have the power to police the compliance of counsels with their deontological or ethical mandates imposed by any local code/rule. These ethical constraints are generally introduced by a local code governing the professional conduct of the lawyer practicing thereof. They include the duty to not discontinue representation without a good cause or the commitment to confidentiality. It reasoned that since the removal of counsel attacks the core of the fairness of proceedings, it is a mandate of the ICSID Tribunal.

    The Contours of the Power of ICSID Tribunals to Control Representation of Counsels

    The Tribunals in all the above-quoted disputes have reasoned that the power to remove counsel is exercised to ensure the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. In both the decisions in Fraport and Theodore, the Tribunals refused to look into the counsel’s deontological or ethical mandate. They found it outside the purview of their authority and a question that is to be decided by local or regional courts.

    It can be understood that the ICSID Tribunals have been reluctant to rule on anything else apart from simply the participation of a counsel. The Author believes that the power to exclude includes the power to retain counsel by overriding the parties’ choice. In simpler words, there are instances where the Client/Party does not want their counsel to continue. The Tribunals have the power to order the continuation of their representation against the party’s wishes. One crucial aspect is the conditions or situations where a counsel can be removed from the ongoing proceedings.

    Ruling on Counsel’s request for removal

    The five above-referenced awards do not concern any situation where the Tribunal was required to address a counsel’s request to resign. Almost all of them had some bias or conflict between the challenged counsel and an arbitrator. There may arise a situation where the counsel wishes to resign, whether voluntarily or per the desire of either party that wants their counsel to discontinue representation. In these scenarios, as already stated, the courts generally use their wisdom to decide based on every case’s peculiar facts and circumstances.

    Generally, counsels decide to withdraw their representation when there is a breakdown of any attorney-client relationship. Simply put, it is when the attorney has lost faith in his client and their case or vice versa. It is broken down to such an extent that the representation would only harm the client’s case. Also, it is essential to note that the withdrawal should not cause undue or unreasonable delay to the proceeding. This also means that there should be no prejudice caused to parties involved by the ‘withdrawal of a counsel’.

    In the Jean-Boscotrial, the International Criminal Tribunal (hereinafter “ICT”) for Rwanda denied withdrawal/replacement of counsel because of the possibility of undue delay in the proceedings that would cause prejudice to the parties. It was highlighted in the Jean-Bosco decision that new counsel needs to acquaint themselves with the facts, documents, and figures of the existing case. Sometimes, this process of getting acquainted with everything also causes an undue delay in the proceedings, and the Courts have rejected the withdrawal for this reason of delay. This similar reasoning was also employed by the ICT for Rwanda in the Jean-Bosco Trial to decide on dismissing the withdrawal/replacement of counsel.

    Suggestions and Conclusion

    There is an apparent dearth of awards and decisions by ICSID Tribunals on the issue of counsel withdrawal/exclusion. The available awards reiterate the similar reasoning applied by the Tribunals in every dispute. There seems to be a well-founded reluctance by ICSID Tribunals to adjudicate over counsel’s withdrawal or exclusion with full vigor. ICSID Tribunals are constituted mainly to resolve the dispute between investors and States. The contours of a Tribunal’s powers are well-defined in the ICSID Convention, Rules, and Regulation. Thus, the Tribunal finds itself in a quagmire or conundrum where the chances of overreach exist. In light of various awards highlighted in this article, it is abundantly clear that the ICSID Tribunals have discovered their inherent power to decide on any question of “procedure” of the dispute flowing from Article 44 of the ICSID Convention. Issues of counsel’s conduct and obligations are not the mandate of ICSID Tribunals. If the Tribunals are given unfettered power to decide upon the issue of counsel’s ethical obligations, it will open a floodgate of fresh proceedings and further cause delay. This would defeat the purpose of arbitration proceedings, where the primary aim is to promote expediency and efficiency.

    If a further step could be taken, the ICSID Convention should insert an explicit provision defining the power of its Tribunals to decide upon the issue of counsel resignation/removal in cases of apparent bias/conflict with the arbitrator or irrevocable breakdown of attorney-client relationship. To develop their contours or limits, the Tribunals may take assistance from decisions of local courts and international tribunals where the issue of counsel resignation has been discussed in length.

  • Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clause: A note on determining transnational jurisdictional dispute 

    Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clause: A note on determining transnational jurisdictional dispute 

    By Manan Mondal, An SLS, HYDERABAD law graduate

    In general a jurisdiction clause dictates the forum where parties want their disputes arising under the terms of the agreement to be determined before a Competent Court with necessary jurisdiction. However, with present day drafters of finance agreements containing a limited jurisdiction clause, termed asymmetric jurisdiction clause, have created an unnecessary stir in determining the competent jurisdiction. The present analysis sheds some light towards deciphering the jurisdictional turmoil.

    What is Asymmetric jurisdiction?

    Herein parties decide the jurisdiction of the Court or Courts to adjudicate the dispute, allowing one party, usually the lender, to sue the other party, generally the borrower, in any Court of law but preventing the borrower from proceeding in any Court except the one with exclusive jurisdiction.

    For instance, through the terms of the contractual arrangement, in an Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clause between X and Y, Y has limited authority over particular designated jurisdiction named A, while X has jurisdiction to sue in any Court under such a clause. Hence, the terms of an Asymmetric Jurisdiction can also be understood as an exclusive choice of Court or devolving a choice of jurisdiction upon a particular Court, as opposed to the essential factors followed in our domestic Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

    Now, this liberty of choosing any Court to refer the dispute by the party with broader jurisdiction casts a few fundamental questions, i.e., whether such a Court will be stricto sensu ‘any Court’ or a Court of ‘Competent Jurisdiction’? And whether there exist any judicial opinion to determine the competence of a ‘Court’ in a transnational dispute?

    Generally, a non-symmetric jurisdiction draws its sustenance from two primary legislation of the European Union- the Brussels Regulation (Recast) and the 2005 Hague Convention. However, following the Brexit, the Brussels regulation is no longer a valid authority post-December 2020 in the United Kingdom. Parties are constrained to find shelter under the 2005 Hague (Choice of Court Agreement), making it difficult for them to navigate through turbulent jurisdictional waters.

    The Dissonance between Exclusive jurisdiction and Asymmetric jurisdiction

    The Hague Convention relates to an ‘exclusive’ choice of Court arrangement under article 3(a). This exclusivity must be mutual, and a clause stipulating the parties to either sue in a limited jurisdiction or in any other Court will not be an exclusive choice of court, since it designates more than one Court as the venue for dispute resolution. However, different types of arrangements are still valid in determining the suitable jurisdiction, and the 2005 Hague Convention does not protest such domestic legislations towards determining of Court’s adjudicatory authority. Therefore, ‘Exclusive Jurisdiction’ is when the Court of one contracting party is designated to decide the dispute to the exclusion of other jurisdictions, provided the transaction is international. An asymmetrical clause makes this choice of Court a contractual agreement, with the chosen forum applying its laws and procedures, even if the proceedings are running concurrently in another jurisdiction. And the party resisting the choice of agreement needs to establish exceptional circumstances to save itself from this jurisdictional bargain.

    In the English case of Commerzbank AG v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc, (‘Commerzbank AG‘) the issue before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the asymmetric jurisdiction clause is akin to the exclusive jurisdiction clause within the Brussels Regulation (Recast). As per article 31(2) of the Brussels 1 Recast, the jurisdiction agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of an EU member state; but this notion is true when any EU member state has been granted a limited jurisdiction, as in the instant case. Furthermore, Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother [2020] confirmed that the agreements conferring jurisdiction on the Courts of member states through an asymmetric clause would be akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Thus, dictums flowing through article 31(2) of the Brussels 1 Recast will render concurrent judicial processes in other destinations redundant, an absurdity under the 2005 Hague Convention.

    Hence, according to Justice Cranston in Commerzbank AG, the asymmetric jurisdiction is akin to the exclusive jurisdiction clause, and the parties can sue only in the agreed or designated Court, deriving the ratio from Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v. Hestia Holdings Ltd ], where it is rightly held the party with the broader jurisdiction can sue in any Court with ‘competent jurisdiction’ the term ‘any Court’ symbolizes a Court with the necessary authority to hear the same.

    Conferring Jurisdiction in Asymmetric Clauses

    An asymmetric choice of court agreements, where only limited freedom to determine the courts having jurisdiction is allowed, should be respected. The jurisdiction of any alternative court depends on whether that Court has personal or subject matter jurisdiction.

    In the seminal decision of Apple Sales International v eBizcuss: Cass. 1ere Civ, (‘Apple Case‘), a dispute between companies incorporated in France and   Ireland, respectively, arose. They entered into an agreement containing an asymmetric clause and agreed that disputes would be decided by the Courts of the Republic of Ireland. However, the clause also allowed the Irish company to resolve disputes before the Court of counterparty’s registered office or in ‘any country’ where it suffered loss caused by the counterparty. The Irish entity then argued that the French Commercial Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction vide the asymmetric clause, and Courts in Ireland had the sole jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, following the afore-established rule of jurisdiction and competency, Ireland must have had broader jurisdiction. In contrast, the French entity had limited jurisdiction over Courts in the Republic of Ireland.

    However, the French Supreme Court took a different stance on the issue of asymmetric jurisdiction in X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild. It observed that the asymmetric clause would be upheld provided there is no unilateral jurisdiction clause, failing the core purpose of the clause. In the Apple Case, it was not open to the entities with the benefit clause to choose jurisdiction in any country; the flexibility of selecting jurisdiction is limited to the registered office or where any loss was caused, and the other party has suffered. The French Supreme Court made it clear that asymmetric clauses are to be avoided that allow a single party to apply to any jurisdiction of its choosing unless other possible forums with competent jurisdiction can be objectively determined and applied.

    These French dictums might appear contrary to the notable English decisions in the Commerzbank AG and the Hestia Holdings case. Still, we can establish a faint connection that the flexibility of wider jurisdiction in the hands of one party is not an infinite ray of jurisdiction. It bends before the need of necessary subject matter to such unimpeded jurisdiction.

    Conclusion

    Let’s take an illustration wherein X is conferred the wider jurisdiction to unilaterally approach any Court through the asymmetric clause and Y to the limited jurisdiction A. Whether in such circumstances, it is fair for the transnational parties in an agreement to choose any Court, destination B, which is outside the knowledge of Y? And would the decision by the Courts of such country B have any bearing on the parties? It is a visible hurdle in these limited jurisdiction clauses.

    In the case of Dr Jesse Mashate vs Yoweri Museveni Kaguta , theEnglish Court has tried to answer this riddle. In this case, an overseas party was subjected to the jurisdiction of the English Courts, and necessary summons was served. However, the overseas party failed to submit the necessary defence or any document intended to protect; consequently, the Court issued a default judgment under the English Civil Procedure Rules.

    The Court of Appeal construed that before involving a party to the jurisdiction of the English Courts, i.e., destination B, the party A, with flexible jurisdiction, must explain why such Court has an authority over the dispute and the party be subjected to such jurisdiction. Otherwise, an overseas party must not be vexed with proceedings lacking substance, who bear no other allegiance to the English Courts’ jurisdiction must not be vexatiously subjected to service upon them of process issued out of English courts. Therefore, an applicant to serve out of the jurisdiction must explain the reason behind conferring jurisdiction and how the overseas party is subjected to the exorbitant jurisdiction of that unilaterally chosen Court.

    Hence, the term ‘any Court’ and ‘competent jurisdiction’ are intertwined in financial agreements containing asymmetric clauses. The asymmetric clause is not an agreement to confer jurisdiction where none would otherwise exist; rather it limits the power of one party to approach a certain court, and expands for the another to ‘any Court’. It preserves the right to sue in any court which would reserve itself as competent by establishing a link with the subject matter; otherwise, an infinite ray of broad jurisdiction will be unnecessarily exorbitant on the parties to the agreement.

  • The Spain-Colombia BIT and What it Holds for the Future of Dispute Resolution

    The Spain-Colombia BIT and What it Holds for the Future of Dispute Resolution

    by Abhay Raj and Ajay Raj, third-year and fourth-year students at Jindal Global Law School and Symbiosis Law School PUNE, respectively.

    On 16 September 2021, the Kingdom of Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez and Republic of Colombia’s President, Iván Duque Márquez singed the ‘promotion and reciprocal protection of investments’ (the ‘BIT’). This has been done with a view to provide legitimate rights to both the parties, to achieve the objective of public interest, and to ultimately secure reciprocal protection for their investments. With that, the BIT aims to ensure more independent, impartial, transparent, and coherent arbitration procedures for dispute resolution. While the BIT is not in the public domain yet, however, once in force, it will replace the 2005 Colombia Spain BIT. Owing to a review process that lasted for more than three years (began in December 2017), there are certainly high expectations with the new Colombia-Spain BIT, including inter alia, substantive protections and procedural rights.

    Over the past few years, Spain and Colombia, two of the largest economies in the world, have undertaken notable reforms in the regime of international investment agreements and its framework. Including but not limited to Colombia’s revamping its Model BIT and Spain focusing on European Union’s investment protection policy. While Spain’s reform has largely been motivated by its experience in investor-State arbitration, Colombia’s reform directly emanates from its inactivity in investor-State arbitration before the year 2006. Common to both is the reform to modernise their investments with a focus on managing their exposure to investor claims. The reforms undertaken by both countries has led to the signing of the BIT.

    Spain’s Outlook

    The Colombia-Spain BIT fits into the narrative of being symbolic and following a systematic reform. The decision to modernise and renegotiate the 2005 BIT appears to follow the coeval discussions in the investment arbitration regime, including the conventional investor-state dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) system, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (‘OECD’), and post-Treaty of Lisbon and European Union framework which authorised the European Commission for negotiating international investment agreements (‘IIAs’) with non-European Union states (regulation 1219/2012). Thus, the Spain government had to obtain authorization from the European Commission, before carrying out the negotiations with Columbia, ensuring a focus on EU objectives and policies.  

    The new BIT, 2021, assists in aligning Spain’s interest in investment commitments governing bilateral relations, with the European Union objectives and principles and European Union’s investment protection policy. These objectives and principles are broader policy considerations, for instance, promotion of democracy, human rights, sustainable development, fundamental freedoms, rule of law, standard of treatment, FET clause, and other features (briefly discussed in the latter part of the article). Despite Spain’s inactivity and non-participation in the realm of international investment, it has been one of the most competitive and attractive markets in the European Union. This is demonstrated by the fact of Spain’s being the third-largest in the investment market in the EU and thirteenth recipient of foreign investments in the world. The 2021 BIT is significant because of the fact that Spain signed a BIT after more than 10 years, and its far-reaching mandate maybe its advent into the area of international investment.

    Colombia’s Outlook

    The Republic of Colombia, following 2006, has been mindful of signing and negotiating BIT’s with different States. Colombia till the year 2006, only signed two BIT’s with Peru (1994), and Spain (2005). Following that, it signed more than fourteen BITs. With that, the Republic of Colombia felt the need to renegotiate the existing BIT of 2005 with Spain to follow the trend after 2006 and the Colombia BIT Model, 2017.

    The investment agreement between Colombia and Spain is symbolic from Colombia’s standpoint. Firstly, it is the first agreement that was renegotiated after Colombia’s Model BIT, 2017. The Model BIT, 2017 itself came after Colombia’s experience with the investor disputes (including, Glencore International AG and CI Prodeco SA v Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No ARB/16/6; Ame ́rica Mo ́vil SAB de CV v Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/16/5;  Eco Oro Minerals Corp v Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No ARB/16/41; Gas Natural SDG and Gas; and in total 13 such cases) concerning old BIT’s (Model BIT-2003, 2006, 2009, 2011).

    Secondly, the Colombia-Spain BIT has followed the Colombian Constitutional Court’s judgement (available here), which conditioned on issuance of a joint interpretative note of the provisions entailed in the BIT. According to the Colombian Constitution, the Court’s must assert whether the international treaties signed (and before ratification) are constitutionally valid or not. As such, if the Constitutional Court rules that the treaty’s clauses are unconstitutional, it is unfit to enter such treaty into force.

    Features

    The changes introduced by the renegotiated Colombia-Spain BIT precisely include: (i) Replacing the conventional Investor-State Dispute Settlement with the Multilateral Investment Courts once the treaty comes into force and replaces the 2005 BIT; (ii) Explicitly stating the non-consideration of holding companies as investors, i.e., explicitly excluding companies that merely hold financial interest; (iii) Excluding the fulfilment of the commitments assumed by the Contracting Parties in commercial and economic integration projects and implying that most-favoured-nation treatment cannot be reached into other treaties; and (iv) Miscellaneous changes (reviewing of the Standard of Treatment, the Fair and Equitable Treatment standard, Denial of Benefits clause, and inclusion of Transparency Rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’)).

    • Multilateral Investment Courts

    As a BIT that is signed at an hour when the world is calling reforms in the Investor-State dispute settlement, (for instance, India; Bolivia; Ecuador; Venezuela; Pakistan have refrained from ICSID Convention), the Interpretative Declaration has catalysed Multilateral Investment Court (‘MIC’) and replaced the conventional ISDS system. The proposal of MIC which began with the UNCITRAL Working Group III suggestion (by the European Union and to which Spain is a member state) has come into play with the recent BIT. Such a Court would adjudicate upon claims brought under IIAs, which the member States have decided in assigning the authority. Both of the bodies shall be staffed by decided adjudicators and would be paid on a permanent basis by the member states, with a secretariat to support them.

    Such a negotiation is correlated with the EU’s efforts in calling for a global level reform in the ISDS system. As also evident in the 2019 Final Dutch Model BIT, the EU is taking steps against replacing the conventional system with a permanent investment court arbitration tribunal; for instance, the EU council provided the European Commission for establishing a MIC under the auspices of UNCITRAL.

    The renegotiation has been placed ensuring independent, coherent, impartial, predictable, and transparent arbitration procedures. However, the BIT could have worked on bringing reforms to the conventional ISDS system. For instance, the new BIT could have provided explicit provisions regarding the advisory centre, third-party participation, claims on public money, and third-party funding (as suggested in the UNCITRAL Working Group III session). The BIT could have drawn a fine balance between the conventional ISDS and State’s exposure, by incorporating several exclusions/reservations with respect to the applicability of the system.

    Notwithstanding that, as also discussed in the blog piece by Andreea Nica, the MIC can effectively cater to the concerns regarding duration and cost of the proceedings, appointment of arbitrators, arbitral decisions’ predictability and consistency, and regarding diversity, independence and transparency. Adoption of MIC, thus, acts as a catalyst in providing a better arbitration regime for both the countries (since it mitigates the above mentioned flaws in ISDS system). With that, being a permanent first instance tribunal, MIC would provide for effective enforcement of the decisions in the BIT. Because of the far-reaching implications of the BIT protection standards, MIC would help in an effective process that works transparently and with highly qualified arbitrators. Spain and Colombia being active protectors of the key legal principles of the international investment law, will definitely be able to uphold the principles through the reforms in the BIT, in particular, the ISDS system.

    • Non-Consideration of Holding Companies as Investors

    The BIT concluded for the first time, the non-consideration of holding companies as investors in Articles 1, 2, and 3. This is reflected by the Interpretive Declaration’s view that “the concept of investor explicitly excludes companies that merely hold financial interests”, which is in contrast with the previous IIAs which did not have such a provision for holding companies. Such a view was observed in the Colombia’s Model BIT, 2017, that the investment shall include a closed list of assets, in place of an exemplary list.

    • MFN Treatment

    The most favoured nation treatment has been subject to controversies in investor-state arbitration. However, both Colombia-Spain BIT, 2005 (Article 3) and Colombia Spain 2021 contain the clause of most-favoured-nation (MFN). The Interpretative Declaration clears the exclusion of MFN clause to the extent of the treatments that are derived from the fulfilment of the commitments assumed by the Contracting Parties in commercial projects. This in turn creates a level-playing field for all the foreign investors by prohibiting the host states in discriminating between investors from different countries, and as such, the investors won’t be able to indulge in treaty-shopping. The same was observed in many of the Brazilians BIT’s, for instance, with Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, wherein it stated ‘excluded from the scope of the MFN clause the benefits deriving from regional economic integration’.[i]  

    Comparing it with Colombia’s Model BIT, 2017 in which, the MFN provision was specifically designed to avoid the usage of standards of protection to ‘import’ procedural and substantial provisions from other IIAs.[ii] The model BIT provided for the MFN standard to be invoked only in cases where measures such as administrative acts, or judicial decisions violate the provision of equal treatment of the foreign investors that are a competitor.

    • Miscellaneous changes

    At present, the Interpretative Declaration shall assist us in, little if any understanding, of its stand on the clauses such as the FET clause, Denial of Benefit clause, UNCITRAL rules, and standard of treatment clause.  f the above-mentioned clauses.

    1. The Fair and Equitable Treatment

    The present BIT has thoroughly revised the Fair and Equitable Treatment (‘FET’) standard to minimise the interpretative margins of the Courts. FET clause will thus, act as a catalyser in encouraging investments in the host state by the investors; by not only protecting the investors rights, but also the autonomy of the states. The changes in the BIT vis-à-vis FET standard has followed the recommendations made by the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the EU investment protection agreement’s approach.

    2. UNCITRAL Rules

    For the first time in history, Spain has agreed to include the Transparency Rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL rules) in an attempt to advance its emphasis on independence and impartiality of the members of the Tribunal and the transparency of the procedure. 

    3. Standard of Treatment

    The contents in the BIT, 2021, regarding the standard of treatment has been reviewed in an attempt to circumscribe the tribunal’s margin of interpretation and promote correct interpretation in investor-state disputes. The other mandate is to mitigate the exposure in consideration of the ambiguous wording. It is ideal attempt to clarify the wide spectrum in treaty standards, and simultaneously, it also acts as a catalysers for promoting investment (because of the explicit mention of the provision). With that, it also helps in regulating the autonomy of the States (because of the revision of treatment standard).

    Conclusion

    Although the full text of the BIT is not in the public domain yet, only the Interpretative Declaration, the New BIT definitely includes certain symbolic changes. The new BIT, 2021 is a fresh expression of the speedily shifting landscape in the investment arbitration, and reflects the significant changes since the 2000s. The renegotiated Colombia-Spain BIT addresses a number of conceptual and semantic difficulties that have emanated from the 2005 BIT or that have emerged after the difficulties in the conventional ISDS system. Therefore, the renegotiated Colombia-Spain BIT is anticipated to cater to the interpretative uncertainties that are left to the realms of Courts and mitigate both Spain’s and Colombia’s exposure to non-meritorious claims. When the investor-state dispute settlement system is going through a paradigm shift, the Spain-Colombia BIT, 2021, definitely makes hay while the sun shines, in an attempt to protect investor rights, sovereign prerogatives and public interest.

    [i] Henrique Choer Moraes, Pedro Mendonça Cavalcante, The Brazil-India Investment Co-operation and Facilitation Treaty: Giving Concrete Meaning to the ‘Right to Regulate’ in Investment Treaty Making, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2021; siab013, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siab013.

    [ii] Kabir AN Duggal, Daniel F García Clavijo, Samuel Trujillo, María C Rincón, Colombia’s 2017 Model IIA: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 34(1), 224–240 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siz004.

  • Host States: The Perpetual Respondents in Investment Arbitration?

    Host States: The Perpetual Respondents in Investment Arbitration?

    By Vaidehi Balvally, a fourth-year student at HNLU, Raipur

    Here is what international investment arbitrations conventionally look like: a company contracts with a country to invest in mining, power plants, electricity, waste management, or other similar sectors. Apart from this investor-state contract, there exists a state-state international investment agreement between the home state of the company and the host state of investment, typically a Bilateral Investment Treaty (‘BIT’). This BIT guarantees investors of both states procedural rights (e.g. the right to an investment claim) and substantive rights (e.g. right against expropriation by host state). Upon breach of such rights under the contract or the BIT, a claimant-company can opt to institute an investment arbitration against the respondent-host state. 

    Off-balance access to the filing of claims

    In response to the filing of an investment claim, host states have often chosen to file counter-claims (albeit unsuccessfully, barring a few exceptions). However, it is exceptionally infrequent for host states to institute claims independently before investment tribunals. International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID‘) data exhibits that host states have largely either turned to domestic dispute resolution or worse, traded human rights for investment-friendliness (as in the case of Urbaser v. Argentina). 

    Only five cases under ICSID have moved past the jurisdictional and investor-consent barrier: Gabon’s proceedings against Société Serete S.A. which ended in a settlement (1976) (i); Tanzania’s case against a partly-owned Malaysian corporation (1998) (ii); an Indonesian province’s proceedings which failed since the province could not represent the host state (2007) (iii); Equatorial Guinea’s conciliation proceedings with CMS, which failed in coming to a settlement (2012) (iv); and a Rwandan government company’s case against a London-based power plant operator which is pending (2018) (v). 

    This asymmetry in filing claims before investment tribunals is not without good reason. Investment arbitration was created to protect foreign investment, and in turn, the investors from unbridled use of sovereign power by host states. Consequently, BITs rarely accord investors with substantive obligations, similar to third-party beneficiaries in contracts, and if host states do premise their substantive cause of action upon the BIT, the BIT either is silent or confers incomplete procedural rights to bring forth a claim. 

    It is pertinent to note that all former claimant-state cases have only been based on rights conferred to host states under the investor-state contract. This implies that in the absence of BIT-based rights to investment arbitration, inequitable contracts will continue to remain unaddressed, with a change in BIT structure offering a much-needed resolution forum. 

    Possible solutions

    UK’s BITs are oft-cited as including a model clause which not only confers upon the host state a right to initiate arbitration but also establishes investor-state privity by drafting in the investor’s consent for all disputes brought forth the host state. 

    However, even with a procedural right to proceed to arbitration, most BITs are silent on substantive rights for host states. A solution adopted when the investor suffers only from contractual but not treaty-based breaches, is the use of an ‘umbrella clause’ in BITs which encompasses rights conferred upon investors in an investor-state contract into the larger umbrella of the BIT. Thus, an investor can sue for contractual breach claims in investment arbitration, the jurisdiction of which was established under the BIT, followed in Noble Ventures v. Romania, SGS v. Philippines, and Eureko v. Poland amongst others. Drawing a parallel from this solution, a reverse umbrella clause would allow the institution of investment arbitration by host states in case of a contractual breach, and was similarly used in Roussalis v. Romania to allow filing of counterclaims.  

    Breeding good governance

    After establishing how host states could be equipped with claimant’s rights, prudence demands a look at why host states should begin relying on investment arbitration more than they historically have:

    • Often, states dependent on foreign investment are hosts to judicial systems which do not fulfill rule-of-law requirements, while investment arbitration is systemically more impartial than domestic courts of host/home states. Moreover, it affords host states an international enforcement mechanism, the likes of which are unavailable for locally adjudicated decisions. 
    • Developing states of the global south are especially vulnerable to exploitation by investors with an economic prowess that parallels their whole economies. Conversely, if the judicial systems are entrenched with judicial corruption, host states may want to take a lesson from the Lago Agrio case to preserve their reputation as investment-friendly states by approaching the international investment tribunals in the first place. 
    • The adjudicatory mechanism of the host states may also be exceptionally drawn-out or unreliable, which may eventually lead a party to file for investment claims with a tribunal. To elaborate India was found guilty of a BIT breach for being unable to process investor claims locally for over nine years in White Industries v. India.
    • Another advantage for host states may be the unavailability of appeal against investment arbitration awards except to have them annulled, as opposed to the layered domestic judicial systems. Accounting for the standard of care exercised by tribunals in ensuring that it reaches the most equitable decisions, the time and economic resources invested by parties of the process are significantly lower, especially if the claimant believes it has a strong case. 
    • Even if none of these ring true for a host state, foreign investors commonly operate only out of a domestic investment vehicle in the host state, and enforcement of a decision extra-territorially may not be an option. Alternatively, extra-territorial investments may be of significance in a dispute, which lie outside domestic jurisdiction.

    Conclusion

    The number of cases that were filed under ICSID by host states but failed, if we include state-owned enterprises, have tripled in the past decade. With 70% of all investment arbitration favouring investors in 2018, the resultant backlash of host states against international investment arbitration is understandable. The reasons for this lack of trust by host states or their subsequent failure in investment arbitration has its roots in state-state BIT and investor-state contract construction, which can be remedied. 

    The drafters of the ICSID Convention were wary of investment arbitration turning into a mechanism akin to the domestic judicial review of regulatory measures and appended a report endorsing equality of access to investment arbitration to investors and host states. In contract to commercial arbitration where parties are private actors, host states intervene to secure serious human rights for its populace (water, electricity, labour rights). If this discourse of delegitimisation prevails, conduct incompatible with public welfare will lose its international voice.