• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


“Emergency Measures” Enacted During an Economic Crisis Have Lasting Legal Ramifications

0
by Karl Bayer

Friday, Oct 10, 2008


Tweet

[Ed: On the cusp of what looks to be yet another long weekend on Wall Street, this cautionary tale by Chandra.]

After enacting policies to stem the economic crisis of 2000-2002, Argentina is locked in multiple arbitrations with foreign investors who were hurt by the government’s actions, which included freezing foreign assets and prices. Most of these disputes revolve around claims that Argentina’s government violated the terms of the US-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty, a trade agreement made in 1994. Argentina claims that under Article 11 of the treaty, it was released from the agreement when it had to enact emergency measures to “maintain public order.” Argentina also cites the “state of necessity” standard that is customary under international law.

Many of these disputes were sent, with both parties’ consent, to The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, known as the ICSID, located in Washington, D.C. The ICSID is an institution with over 140 member states that helps independent tribunals facilitate arbitrations by providing institutional and procedural frameworks and facilities. It was created by the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States in 1966. The main goal of the Convention was to increase flows of private investment between countries by creating an impartial forum providing facilities for international investment disputes. Currently the ICSID is the leading arbitration institution for investor-State dispute settlement.

In some disputes the ICSID tribunals found that Argentina’s actions were “necessary” to protect “essential security interests” and were therefore absolved under Article 11 of the treaty. For instance, Continental Casualty, a U.S. investor, sought $112 million (US) in damages; however they were only awarded $2.8 million because most of Argentina’s actions were found necessary.

On the other hand, some tribunals found that Argentina was not in a “state of necessity” at the time of its actions under the stringent tests imposed by customary international law. For instance, in another case the tribunal awarded a US-based energy firm $133 million (US) in compensation. In total so far, Argentina owes over three-quarters of a billion US dollars to various plaintiffs for damages incurred during the crisis, and there are still more disputes to be decided. In these unprecedented financial times, it would be prudent for countries to remember that “emergency actions” still have legal ramifications after the crisis has been abated.

The current global financial crisis has encouraged the United States government to take emergency actions such as the Federal Reserve Bank’s contentious bail-out of AIG. The terms of this deal state that the U.S. government owns 79.9% of equity interest in AIG, with the right to veto dividend payments to preferred shareholder in the deal. The seizure of Washington Mutual will lead to some shareholders’ and bond-holders’ accounts being wiped out. In England, Prime Minister Gordon Brown endorsed Lloyd’s TSB takeover of Halifax Bank of Scotland, despite anti-trust concerns. The ICSID will probably be seeing arbitrations in the future regarding these and other controversial moves that affect foreign investors. Only stringency tests and future tribunal interpretations will tell if the “state of necessity” argument will hold.

Links:

ICSID’s website: http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet

US-Argentina BIT: http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=435

Article on Continental Casualty’s Dispute: http://www.investmenttreatynews.org/cms/news/archive/2008/09/10/award-continental-casualty-company-v-the-argentine-republic-argentina-emerges-largely-victorious-in-dispute-related-to-country-s-financial-crisis.aspx

Official Award given to Continental Casualty: http://www.investmenttreatynews.org/documents/p/24.aspx

Information on various Argentina arbitrations from Investment Treaty News: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itn_oct15_2007.pdf

Article on the seizure of Washington Mutual: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26wamu.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Related Posts

  • GUEST-POST PART I: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type ArbitrationGUEST-POST PART I: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type Arbitration
  • Crossing the Threshold: Arbitral Jurisdiction after BG GroupCrossing the Threshold: Arbitral Jurisdiction after BG Group
  • October 2013 Supreme Court Term BeginsOctober 2013 Supreme Court Term Begins
  • Equal Contest of Arms, Jurisdictional Proof in Investor-State ArbitrationsEqual Contest of Arms, Jurisdictional Proof in Investor-State Arbitrations
  • GUEST-POST PART III: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type ArbitrationGUEST-POST PART III: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type Arbitration
  • GUEST-POST PART II: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type ArbitrationGUEST-POST PART II: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type Arbitration

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Karl Bayer

Karl Bayer is an ADR practitioner with almost thirty years of of experience in litigation, mediation, and arbitration. A long-time successful trial lawyer, Karl recognized early the opportunities which ADR provided to the world of litigation and began to explore the potential of his mediation practice. As he had already earned the respect and trust of both the plaintiffs' and the defense bars, he filled a niche in Austin as a mediator who is requested by both sides of most disputes. He has spoken extensively about ADR and technical topics, both at CLE presentations and as an adjunct professor at The University of Texas School of Law.

Karl also serves frequently as a pre-trial special master in federal district courts in Texas. While this service is often in the capacity of a Markman Master in patent infringement cases, he also serves as a general pre-trial master assisting judges and litigants as they wade through discovery and other pretrial procedural disputes.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy