Mexico
Results: 52
Results: 7
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2023 | Access v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of agricultural land operated by local subsidiary, Nutrilite S.R.L. de C.V., in San Isidoro in the state of Jalisco. Summary: Claims arising out of the government’s decision to seize 280 hectares of agricultural land owned by the claimant and to transfer the land rights to El Ejido San Isidro, a group of local farmers. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
2 | 2023 | Arbor Confections and others v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
3 | 2023 | CDPQ and CDP v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | Canada |
4 | 2023 | Cyrus and Contrarian v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
5 | 2023 | Enerflex and Exterran v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
6 | 2023 | First Majestic v. Mexico (II) |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | Canada |
7 | 2023 | Goldgroup v. Mexico |
Investment: Shareholding of 50% in DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., which owns the high-grade gold exploration project San José de Gracia located in the State of Sinaloa; ownership of 100% in the Cerro Prieto heap-leach gold mine in the State of Sonora. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged failure of Mexican courts to reach a decision on the merits and provide relief to the claimant after 10 years of legal disputes with DynaResource, Inc., concerning the claimant’s stake in DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., and the San José de Gracia gold mine. According to the claimant, the treatment and inaction by the Mexican courts have resulted in a judicial expropriation of its investment in the San José de Gracia gold mining project. |
Pending | Mexico | Canada |
8 | 2023 | Noriega Willars v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
9 | 2023 | Sepadeve v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Discontinued | Mexico | United States of America |
10 | 2023 | Silver Bull v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
11 | 2022 | Amerra and others v. Mexico |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
12 | 2022 | Coeur Mining v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., a local subsidiary with mining concessions for the Palmarejo gold-silver complex. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexican tax authorities’ non-payment of VAT refunds allegedly due to the claimant related to a royalty agreement between Coeur Mexicana and another company for the sale and purchase of Palmarejo gold production. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
13 | 2022 | Consolidated Water v. Mexico |
Investment: Investments through local subsidiaries, N.S.C. Agua, S.A. de C.V. and Aguas de Rosarito, S.A.P.I. de C.V., in a seawater desalination plant project in Playas de Rosarito, Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexican state entities’ termination of a public-private partnership agreement with the claimant’s subsidiary, Aguas de Rosarito, related to the development of a seawater desalination plant. |
Pending | Mexico | Netherlands |
14 | 2022 | Doups v. Mexico |
Investment: Shareholding in Soluciones Pagomet CDMX, S. de R.L. de C.V., with two 10-year concession contracts to install and operate parking meters in Mexico City. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s revocation of two concession contracts related to metered parking systems granted in 2018 to Soluciones Pagomet, a local company in which the claimant held shares. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
15 | 2021 | Finley and others v. Mexico |
Investment: Rights under three oilfield service contracts concluded with state-owned oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex). Summary: Claims arising out of state-owned oil company Pemex’s suspension of three oilfield service contracts concluded with the claimants as well as Mexico’s alleged failure to exercise regulatory control over Pemex. According to the claimants, they were treated arbitrarily and denied justice by Mexican courts. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
16 | 2021 | First Majestic v. Mexico (I) |
Investment: Ownership of Primero Empresa Minera, S.A. de C.V. (“Primero”), a local subsidiary which owns and operates several silver and gold mines in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of the national tax authority’s actions to secure amounts allegedly owned by the claimant’s local subsidiary Primero pursuant to tax reassessments as well as the tax authority’s rejection of the claimant’s requests for the initiation of dispute resolution procedures under double taxation treaties. According to the claimant, the tax authority unlawfully opted to ignore advance pricing agreements it had signed with Primero related to the company’s silver sales. |
Pending | Mexico | Canada |
17 | 2021 | L1bre v. Mexico |
Investment: Indirect shareholding in Servicios Digitales Lusad, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Lusad”), a locally incorporated company holding a 10-year concession for the replacement of taximeters in Mexico City. Summary: Claims arising out of a local government’s interference with a concession held by Lusad for digital taximeters and the operation of a mobile taxi application in Mexico City. |
Discontinued | Mexico | United States of America |
18 | 2020 | ES Holdings and L1bre v. Mexico |
Investment: Indirect shareholding in Servicios Digitales Lusad, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Lusad”), a locally incorporated company holding a 10-year concession for the replacement of taximeters in Mexico City. Summary: Claims arising out of a local government’s interference with a concession held by Lusad for digital taximeters and the operation of a mobile taxi application in Mexico City. |
Pending | Mexico | Canada |
19 | 2020 | Rabobank v. Mexico |
Investment: Loans to Oceanografía, S.A. de C.V. to finance the purchase of nine vessels for maritime transport services. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s seizure of maritime shipping company Oceanografía and other measures, which allegedly resulted in the company’s bankruptcy and the loss of the claimant’s investment in Oceanografía undertaken through loans for the purchase of vessels. |
Discontinued | Mexico | Netherlands |
20 | 2019 | Highlands v. Mexico |
Investment: Indirect shareholding via Coastline Group in Marfield Ltd. Inc. and Shanara Maritime International S.A., which own two vessels (“Caballo Marango” and “Caballo Maya”). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged taking of control and possession of two vessels belonging to Marfield and Shanara from 2014 until 2017 and 2018, in connection with measures against another company (Oceanografía SA de C.V.). |
Pending | Mexico | United Kingdom |
21 | 2019 | Legacy Vulcan v. Mexico |
Investment: Concessions for a port terminal and authorizations for two lime extraction plants (“La Adelita” and “El Corchalito”) held by its local subsidiary, Calizas Industriales de Carmes, S.A. de C.V (“Calica”). Summary: Claims arising out of Government agencies’ revocation of the port concession held by the claimant’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Calica, and the forced closure of Calica’s quarrying operations at the “La Adelita” and “El Corchalito” sites in the State of Quintana Roo. According to the claimant, these events were preceded Government agencies’ unilateral amendments to agreements with Calica and the imposition of allegedly illegal taxes, contested by Calica in several local court cases. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
22 | 2019 | Odyssey v. Mexico |
Investment: Seabed mining concession for a phosphate deposit in the Pacific Ocean held by Exploraciones Oceánicas S. de R.L. de C.V., a local subsidiary of the claimant. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources to deny environmental permits for the claimant’s seabed mining project in the local subsidiary’s concession area, offshore from the coast of Baja California Sur in Mexico. Allegedly, the Ministry’s decision disregarded scientific evidence provided by the claimant in the project development plan and environmental impact assessment. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
23 | 2018 | Alicia Grace and others v. Mexico |
Investment: Shareholding of 43.2 per cent in Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Oro Negro”) and 99.9 per cent shareholding in the subsidiary company, Perforadora Oro Negro, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Perforadora Oro Negro”). Summary: Claims arising out of the early termination of lease agreements by Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), a state-owned oil company, for five offshore oil drilling platforms owned by Oro Negro’s subsidiary which is controlled by the claimants. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
24 | 2018 | PACC v. Mexico |
Investment: Investments in a vessel charter business in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of certain actions by Mexican authorities that prevented the claimant and its subsidiaries from continuing to charter vessels to Pemex, Mexico’s national oil and gas company, thereby allegedly destroying the claimant’s investment. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Singapore |
25 | 2017 | Eutelsat v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of Satélites Mexicanos (Satmex), a Mexican company that operates telecom satellites, allegedly acquired for USD 831 million. Summary: Claims arising out of a regulatory requirement to reserve a certain amount of megahertz of satellite companies’ overall capacity for Government use; the claimant alleges that Satmex has been required to provide a greater amount of megahertz to the State than its competitors. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | France |
26 | 2017 | Sastre and others v. Mexico |
Investment: Investments in boutique hotels. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged illegal seizure by municipal and federal officials of hotel properties in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo in which the claimants had invested. According to the claimants, the federal courts failed to remedy the alleged illegal dispossessions in subsequent local court proceedings. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico |
Argentina France Portugal Canada |
27 | 2017 | Vento v. Mexico |
Investment: Investments in manufacturing of motorcycles. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico’s allegedly discriminatory treatment of the claimant, which includes subjecting Vento’s motorcycles to a 30 per cent import duty (on the ground that they are in fact made in China, not in the United States), whereas the claimant’s competitors do not pay such import duty. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
28 | 2016 | B-Mex and others v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership interests in several gaming facilities in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged unlawful interference with the claimants’ casino business in Mexico, including raids on facilities, seizure of equipment and bank account funds, closure of facilities and invalidation of a gaming permit. |
Pending | Mexico | United States of America |
29 | 2016 | Nelson v. Mexico |
Investment: Majority ownership of Tele Fácil México, S.A. de C.V (“Tele Fácil”), a locally incorporated company with a concession to operate as a telecommunications provider. Summary: Claims arising out of certain decisions by Mexico’s federal telecommunications regulator IFT related to a disagreement between Tele Fácil and a large telecommunications provider in Mexico, Telmex, over the terms of an interconnection agreement. Allegedly, IFT failed to enforce a resolution, which it had rendered in Tele Fácil’s favour, and subsequently issued decisions that resolved the disagreement with Telmex to the claimant's detriment, rendering Tele Fácil commercially unviable and denying it access to the Mexican telecommunications market. According to the claimant, IFT subjected Tele Fácil to disproportionate enforcement actions and Mexican courts failed to address IFT’s misconduct. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
30 | 2015 | Lion v. Mexico |
Investment: Promissory notes and mortgages over three properties located in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexican authorities’ cancellation of promissory notes held by the claimant and of related mortgages which designated the claimant as the beneficiary. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Canada |
31 | 2015 | Shanara and Marfield v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of vessels and leasing to a company carrying out offshore construction services. Summary: Claims arising out of precautionary injunction measures imposed by Mexico’s Attorney General on two vessels owned by claimants, preventing their navigation and movement. |
Pending | Mexico | Panama |
32 | 2013 | Cemusa v. Mexico |
Investment: Rights under a concession held by claimants' locally-incorporated company Eumex to provide the city of Guadalajara with bus stops and other street furniture containing advertising space. Summary: Claims arising out of the annulment of claimants' street furnishing concession by an administrative court in the Mexican state of Jalisco and its transfer to another street furnishing company, allegedly in contravention of claimants' rights under the concession. |
Discontinued | Mexico | Spain |
33 | 2013 | KBR v. Mexico |
Investment: Rights under contracts for the construction of two offshore gas platforms held through KBR's wholly-owned subsidiary; ICC arbitral award. Summary: Claims arising out of the Mexican courts' annulment of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award issued in favour of claimant's subsidiary, COMMISA, concerning a contractual dispute with a Mexican State-owned entity. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
34 | 2012 | Telefónica v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of seven Mexican telecommunications subsidiaries, including their assets, contracts, concessions, permits and authorizations. Summary: Claims arising out a series of measures adopted by Mexican authorities allegedly aimed at settling disagreements among telecommunications operators in the country, including the issuance of a resolution by the regulatory authority Cofetel requiring all telecoms operators to reduce their interconnection tariffs. |
Settled | Mexico | Spain |
35 | 2009 | Abengoa v. Mexico |
Investment: Construction of a hazardous waste landfill and treatment plant under authorizations and permits granted to claimants' investment vehicle company by a Mexican municipality. Summary: Claims arising out of the stalled opening of a hazardous waste landfill and treatment plant built by the claimants in the Mexican state of Hidalgo, due to several alleged acts by the municipality of Zimapán and certain federal authorities, including Mexico's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Interior. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Spain |
36 | 2005 | Bayview v. Mexico |
Investment: Water rights under a 1944 US-Mexico water treaty held by forty six American claimants including seventeen Irrigation Districts, sixteen individuals, two trusts, two limited partnership, two estates, four corporations and three general partnerships. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's alleged capture, seizure and diversion of more irrigation water of the Rio Grande River than that to which the country had right under a bilateral US-Mexico treaty, to the benefit and use of Mexican farmers. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
37 | 2005 | Cargill v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of local company engaged in the manufacture and production of certain fructose syrup used as soft drink sweetener. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's 2002 adoption of a tax on beverages containing high fructose corn syrup, that allegedly affected the claimants' investments in the high fructose corn syrup industry in Mexico. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | United States of America |
38 | 2004 | ADM v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of local company engaged in the manufacture and production of certain fructose syrup used as soft drink sweetener. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's 2002 adoption of a tax on beverages containing high fructose corn syrup, that allegedly affected the claimants' investments in the high fructose corn syrup industry in Mexico. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | United States of America |
39 | 2004 | Corn Products v. Mexico |
Investment: Wholly-owned subsidiary engaged in the large scale production of high fructose corn syrup industry in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's 2002 adoption of a tax on high fructose corn syrup allegedly aimed at protecting Mexico's domestic sugar producers and excluding high fructose corn syrup from the soft drink sweetener market. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | United States of America |
40 | 2004 | Gemplus v. Mexico |
Investment: Minority shareholding in local company that had a concession agreement with the Mexican Ministry of Economy. Summary: Claims arising out of the revocation of a concession granted by the federal government to operate a national vehicle registry. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | France |
41 | 2004 | Talsud v. Mexico |
Investment: Minority shareholding in local company that had a concession agreement with the Mexican Ministry of Economy. Summary: Claims arising out of the revocation of a concession granted by the federal government to operate a national vehicle registry. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Argentina |
42 | 2002 | Fireman's Fund v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of dollar-nominated debentures by insurance company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged government's facilitation of purchase of debentures denominated in Mexican pesos and owned by Mexican investors, but not facilitating the purchase of debentures denominated in U.S. dollars and owned by Fireman's Fund. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
43 | 2002 | Frank v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of beachfront property in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of a beachfront property belonging to the investor in Mexico's Baja California area. |
Discontinued | Mexico | United States of America |
44 | 2002 | GAMI v. Mexico |
Investment: Minority shareholding in a Mexican holding company, owner of five sugar mills. Summary: Claims arising out of the issuance of a decree for the stated purpose of revitalizing the Mexican sugar industry under which Mexican authorities expropriated sugar mills owned by its local subsidiaries. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
45 | 2002 | Thunderbird v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of three gaming facilities. Summary: Claims arising out of the closure of the investor's gaming facilities by the Mexican government agency that had jurisdiction over gaming activity. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | Canada |
46 | 2001 | Adams v. Mexico |
Investment: Acquisition of residential housing and associated infrastructure improvements. Summary: Claims arising out of the enforcement of a judicial decision ordering the return of certain land to its original owners, thus requiring the eviction of residents of a tourist/residential development built upon such land, many of whom were Americans. |
Discontinued | Mexico | United States of America |
47 | 2000 | Tecmed v. Mexico |
Investment: Majority shareholding in local investment vehicle which acquired land, buildings and other assets through a bid procedure to operate a hazardous waste landfill in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's alleged non-renewal of a licence necessary to operate a landfill of hazardous industrial waste. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Spain |
48 | 2000 | Waste Management v. Mexico (II) |
Investment: Waste management concession agreement. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged breach of a 15-year concession granted by the State of Guerrero and the municipality of Acapulco to the claimant for public waste management services. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
49 | 1999 | Feldman v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of local company engaged in the export of tobacco products from Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's application of certain tax laws to the export of tobacco products which allegedly denied claimant's local company, an exporter of cigarettes from Mexico, the benefits of a law that allowed certain tax refunds to exporters. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | United States of America |
50 | 1998 | Waste Management v. Mexico (I) |
Investment: Rights under a waste management concession agreement held by claimant's local subsidiary company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged breach of a 15-year concession granted by the State of Guerrero and the municipality of Acapulco to Acaverde, USA Waste's Mexican subsidiary, for public waste management services. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
51 | 1997 | Azinian v. Mexico |
Investment: Shareholding in local company that held a concession contract with the local government for waste collection and disposal. Summary: Claims arising out of the cancellation by the Mexican city council of Naucalpan of a concession contract for commercial and industrial waste collection. |
Decided in favour of State | Mexico | United States of America |
52 | 1997 | Metalclad v. Mexico |
Investment: Ownership of landfill property as well as permits and licenses for the development and operation of a hazardous waste disposal enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged interference of the Mexican local governments of San Luis Potosí and Guadalcázar with the investor's development and operation of a hazardous waste landfill. |
Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | United States of America |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2023 | JLL v. Honduras |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Honduras | Mexico |
2 | 2023 | TV Azteca and Azteca Comunicaciones v. Peru |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Peru | Mexico |
3 | 2018 | GBM Global and others v. Spain |
Investment: Shareholding and bondholding in Banco Popular Español, S.A., one of Spain’s largest banks. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s withdrawal of significant amounts of deposits from Banco Popular. The authorities allegedly refused to provide financial support during the Bank’s ensuing liquidity crisis in 2017, which led to the Bank’s forced resolution and sale to a Spanish bank – the sole bidder in the auction – for one euro. |
Discontinued | Spain | Mexico |
4 | 2018 | Valle Ruiz and others v. Spain |
Investment: Shareholding and bondholding in Banco Popular Español, S.A., one of Spain’s largest banks. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged withdrawal of significant amounts of deposits from Banco Popular. The authorities allegedly refused to provide financial support during the Bank’s ensuing liquidity crisis in 2017, which led to the Bank’s forced resolution and sale to a Spanish bank – the sole bidder in the auction – for one euro. |
Decided in favour of State | Spain | Mexico |
5 | 2016 | América Móvil v. Colombia |
Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary Comunicación Celular, S.A. (“Comcel”) that held concessions for mobile phone services. Summary: Claims arising out of measures that allegedly prevented the claimant’s Colombian subsidiary Comcel from freely using or selling its wireless telecommunications assets after the termination of its concession contracts. The challenged measures include, among others, the Colombian Constitutional Court’s decision of 2013 ordering the reversion of certain telecommunication assets to state control on a concession’s expiry or termination and the subsequent refusal of the Government to recognize Comcel’s property rights over those assets following the contract termination. |
Decided in favour of State | Colombia | Mexico |
6 | 2013 | North American Investors v. United States |
Investment: Investments in and through the Stanford Financial group of companies based in Texas, including certificates of deposit issued by Antiguan-based Stanford International Bank. Summary: Claims arising out of Government regulators’ alleged failure to protect claimants’ investment by neglecting to stop the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a timely manner. |
Pending | United States of America |
Mexico Canada |
7 | 2009 | CANACAR v. USA |
Investment: Trucking services provided by claimant, a trade association representing individual carriers within the Mexican trucking industry. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged restrictions imposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation upon Mexican carrier operations in the United States and Mexican investments in U.S. carriers, as well as the United States' failure to comply with a 2001 NAFTA Chapter 20 arbitral decision, "In the Matter of Cross-Border Trucking Services". |
Discontinued | United States of America | Mexico |