Abusive Reorganization of Investments
Elliot E. Polebaum and Helene Gogadze write: It is perfectly legitimate for an investor to seek to protect itself from the general risk of future disputes with a state in which it invests, and to do so by structuring the investment in a way that the investor considers beneficial. However, corporate reorganizations that change the nationality of an investor to manufacture International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes jurisdiction can be problematic.
February 11, 2015 at 10:12 AM
13 minute read
It is perfectly legitimate for an investor to seek to protect itself from the general risk of future disputes with a state in which it invests, and to do so by structuring the investment in a way that the investor considers beneficial. For example, an investor may transfer assets from one entity to another, or establish a new entity in a jurisdiction that is considered protective of the investor's interests. The benefits of corporate restructuring may include the availability of substantive protections and guarantees under an investment treaty, and the possibility to arbitrate an investment dispute with the state where the investment is made before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Recently, in Levy and Gremcitel v. Republic of Peru, an international arbitration tribunal recognized that “an organization or reorganization of a corporate structure designed to obtain investment treaty benefits is not illegitimate per se, including where this is done with a view to shielding the investment from possible future disputes with the host state.”1 However, corporate reorganizations that change the nationality of an investor to manufacture ICSID jurisdiction can be problematic. Whereas a local investor cannot invoke investment treaty protections under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties, a foreign investor may be able to do so. Therefore, when a corporate reorganization transforms a local company into a foreign company to try to enable an investor to invoke investment treaty protections and to initiate international arbitration against the host state, the respondent state is likely to call foul and raise jurisdictional objections.
That is what happened in Levy. In this case, Renée Rose Levy, a French national, and Gremcitel S.A., a Peruvian company, initiated ICSID arbitration against the Government of Peru. On Jan. 9, 2015, the ICSID Tribunal issued an award, finding that the corporate restructuring by which Levy became the main shareholder of Gremcitel and sought to confer on Gremcitel the French nationality necessary to initiate investment treaty arbitration under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) constituted an abuse of process. The tribunal concluded that the only purpose of the restructuring was to obtain access to ICSID arbitration, which would have otherwise been precluded because Gremcitel is a Peruvian company. In particular, the restructuring was carried out on the eve of arbitration, at a time when the claimants could very well foresee the impending dispute with the Government of Peru.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholders Christina M. Carroll and A. Michael Pratt have entered appearances for the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Wendy Spicher in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 13 in Texas Northern District Court by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders; Ashcroft Sutton Reyes; and Locke Lord on behalf of TMX Finance Corporate Services, seeks to challenge the secretary’s ongoing attempt to regulate commercial lending activity outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The suit furthers contends that the secretary issued an investigative subpoena to TMX for potential violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law and the Consumer Discount Company Act despite TMX's business activities not being governed by such. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey, is 3:24-cv-02054, TMX Finance Corporate Services Inc v. Spicher.
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250