Whether the standard of proof provided for in Article 10.20.4(c) of the Trade Promotion Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Panama (‘US-Panama TPA’), requiring the Tribunal to assume a claimant’s factual allegations to be true when deciding on arespondent’s preliminary objection that the claimant’s claim was defective ‘as a matter of law’, also applied to objections as to the Tribunal’s competence made under Article 10.20.5 of the US-Panama TPA.
Whether trademarks and trademark licenses qualified as an ‘investment’ under Articles 10.29(f) and 10.29(g) of the US-Panama TPA.
Whether a ‘causal link’ between a host state’s action and a claimant’s investment was required for a dispute to arise ‘directly out of’ the claimant’s investment as required by Article 25 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States.
Whether a claimant had ‘no substantial business activities’ in the territory of a home state, so that the host state was entitled to deny benefits to the Claimant pursuant to Article 10.12 of the US-Panama TPA.
Whether discharging the whole of a judgment debt, for which a claimant was jointly liable with an entity that undisputedly lacked standing to bring a claim under the applicable investment treaty, constituted an abuse of process if the claimant then sought the recovery of the sum paid as a head of damages in the arbitration proceedings.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
to access all content.