23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
On June 12, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal in Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan, composed of Professor Julian D.M. Lew (President), Professor Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (Arbitrator), and Professor Bernard Hanotiau (President), issued its Procedural Order No. 3, ordering claimants to confirm
whether its claims in this arbitration are being funded by a third-party funder, and if so, shall, advise Respondent and the Tribunal of the name or names and details of the third-party funder(s), and the nature of the arrangements concluded with the third-party funder(s), including whether and to what extent it/they will share in any successes that Claimants may achieve in this arbitration.
This is the first publicly available written order issued by an arbitral tribunal constituted under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) that compels claimants to disclose information about any third-party funding arrangements.
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Investment Treaty Arbitration website (visited January 15, 2015), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4350.pdf.
1 Muhammet, Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkm., ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Procedural Order No. 3, ¶ 13 (June 12, 2015)Google Scholar, http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4350.pdf [hereafter Ticaret Procedural Order No. 3].
2 Although it has been reported that the arbitral tribunal in EuroGas v. Slovakia issued an order to parties compelling disclosure of third-party funders, the actual publicly available record of Procedural Orders issued by the EuroGas v. Slovakia tribunal does not contain any such explicit order for disclosure, much more reasons justifying disclosure. Compare Increasing Obligations Regarding Third Party Funding, Global Investment Protection, http://www.globalinvestmentprotection.com/index.php/increasing-obligations-regarding-third-party-funding/ Google Scholar (last visited Feb. 23, 2016) with Procedural Order Nos. 1 to 4 in EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, (Apr.–Aug., 2015), A report states that this was an oral order of the arbitral tribunal issued during a March 17, 2015 hearing on provisional measures. See Jarrod Hepburn, ICSID Tribunal Orders Identification of Third-Party Funder, But Denies State’s Request for Security for Costs and Claimants’ Request for Provisional Measures, Investment Arbitration Reporter (Aug. 3, 2015)Google Scholar, http://www.iareporter.com/articles/icsid-tribunal-orders-identification-of-third-party-funderbut-denies-states-request-for-security-for-costs-and-claimants’RequestForProvisionalMeasures/, Investment Arbitration Reporter (Aug. 3, 2015)Google Scholar, http://www.iareporter.comarticles/icsid-tribunal-orders-identification-of-third-party-funder-but-denies-states-request-for-security-for-costs-and-claimants-request-for-provisional-measures/.
3 Turkish national Mr. Muhammet Çap owns the majority of Turkey-registered company Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. See Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkm., ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, ¶ 51 (Feb. 15, 2015).
4 Id. ¶ 61.
5 Id. ¶ 55.
6 Id. ¶ 56.
7 Id. ¶ 57.
8 Id. ¶ 98.
9 Id. ¶ 287.
10 Ticaret Procedural Order No. 3, supra note 1, ¶ 1.
11 See Kiliç¸ İnşaat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkm., ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1, https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/icsidweb/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseno=ARB/10/1.
12 Ticaret Procedural Order No. 3, supra note 1, ¶ 2.
13 Id. ¶¶ 3–4.
14 Id. ¶ 6.
15 Id. ¶ 9.
16 Id. ¶ 10.
17 Id. ¶ 11.
18 Id. ¶ 11.
19 See Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. (CSOB) v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 32 (May 24, 1999); Teinver SA v. Arg., ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, ¶ 256 (Dec. 21, 2012). 2016] See also Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary 185 (2d ed. 2011) (“[D]isposal or transfer of assets that form the basis of a claim in investment arbitration subsequent to the institution of proceedings does not affect the standing of the original claimant. . . . ICSID tribunals have been flexible in extending or preserving party status to successors in interest. At the same time there is also a certain caution against an uncontrolled extension of jurisdiction. . . . Opportunistic assignments designed to bring an existing dispute within the scope of ICSID’s jurisdiction will not be accepted.”).
20 KT Asia Investment Group v. Kaz., ICSID Case No. ARB/09/8, Award, ¶ 50 (Oct. 17, 2013).
21 Teinver, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, ¶¶ 254–259.
22 Giovanni Alemanni v. Arg., ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ¶ 278 (Nov. 17, 2014).
