Peru
Results: 34
Results: 5
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2023 | TV Azteca and Azteca Comunicaciones v. Peru |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Peru | Mexico |
2 | 2022 | Amorrortu v. Peru (II) |
Investment: Investments in Baspetrol S.A.C., a company operating in the oil and gas field. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision of PeruPetro, a state-owned petroleum company, to conduct a public bidding process for operating Blocks III and IV of the Talara Basin crude oil reserve, which allegedly deprived the claimant’s company Baspetrol of its right to negotiate directly with PeruPetro. According to the claimant, Baspetrol was allegedly unfairly excluded from the bidding process and PeruPetro awarded the licences to local company Graña y Montero S.A., allegedly as part of a corruption scheme involving the then Government. |
Pending | Peru | United States of America |
3 | 2022 | Nova Scotia v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding in local subsidiary Scotiabank Peru S.A., which had acquired the local bank Banco Wiese. Summary: Claims arising out of the constitutional court’s dismissal of a case brought by the claimant’s local subsidiary Scotiabank Peru challenging the accrual of default interest on long-disputed taxes imposed by Peru’s tax authority SUNAT. According to the claimant, the default interest was improperly applied on tax liabilities during a period of delay caused by the state in administrative proceedings. |
Pending | Peru | Canada |
4 | 2021 | Enagás v. Peru (II) |
Investment: Shareholding in pipeline company Transportadora de Gas del Perú S.A. (TGP). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged measure prohibiting the claimant from making overseas transfers of dividends from its investments in TGP. |
Pending | Peru | Spain |
5 | 2021 | Kaloti v. Peru |
Investment: Investments in gold trading and export activities. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged seizure of the claimant’s properties and assets, including gold purchased by the claimant from local suppliers. |
Pending | Peru | United States of America |
6 | 2021 | Linares Sanoja and others v. Peru |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Peru | Italy |
7 | 2021 | Quanta v. Peru |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Peru | Netherlands |
8 | 2021 | Telefónica v. Peru |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Peru | Spain |
9 | 2021 | VINCI v. Peru |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Peru | France |
10 | 2020 | Amorrortu v. Peru (I) |
Investment: Investments in Baspetrol S.A.C., a company operating in the oil and gas field. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision of PeruPetro, a state-owned petroleum company, to conduct a public bidding process for operating Blocks III and IV of the Talara Basin crude oil reserve, which allegedly deprived the claimant’s company Baspetrol of its right to negotiate directly with PeruPetro. According to the claimant, Baspetrol was allegedly unfairly excluded from the bidding process and PeruPetro awarded the licences to local company Graña y Montero S.A., allegedly as part of a corruption scheme involving the then Government. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | United States of America |
11 | 2020 | Freeport-McMoRan v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding of 54 per cent in Sociedad Minera Cerro Verde S.A.A. with a mining concession for a copper deposit southwest of Arequipa. Summary: Claims arising out of the national tax authority’s mining royalty assessments on ore processed by Cerro Verde, related penalties and interest charged on Cerro Verde. According to the claimant, a 1998 stability agreement exempted Cerro Verde from royalties on all minerals extracted from its mining concessions. |
Pending | Peru | United States of America |
12 | 2020 | Lupaka v. Peru |
Investment: Ownership (100% interest) of Invicta Mining Corporation S.A.C., a local subsidiary holding six mining concessions for a gold mining project in the Huaura Province, northeast of the city of Lima. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s actions and omissions, through the local community of Parán, related to an alleged illegal blockade and invasion of the claimant’s “Invicta Gold Development Project“, which ultimately resulted in the loss of the mining project. |
Pending | Peru | Canada |
13 | 2020 | Odebrecht v. Peru |
Investment: Majority shareholding (55 per cent) in the consortium “Gasoducto Sur Peruano” (GSP) holding a concession to build a natural gas pipeline. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s cancellation of a concession contract to build the Gasoducto Sur Peruano natural gas pipeline in 2017 and other allegedly arbitrary government measures taken related to the GSP project. |
Pending | Peru | Luxembourg |
14 | 2020 | SMM Cerro v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding of 21 per cent in Sociedad Minera Cerro Verde S.A.A. with a mining concession for a copper deposit southwest of Arequipa. Summary: Claims arising out of the national tax authority’s mining royalty assessments on ore processed by Cerro Verde, related penalties and interest charged on Cerro Verde. |
Pending | Peru | Netherlands |
15 | 2020 | Worth Capital v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding in Petróleos de la Selva (formerly Maple Gas Corporation), a company operating the Pucallpa oil and gas refinery in the Ucayali region. Summary: Claims arising out of state entities’ alleged obstruction of the claimant’s business activities at the Pucallpa refinery operated by its local company, leading to the refinery’s closure. |
Discontinued | Peru | United States of America |
16 | 2019 | Kenon and IC Power v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding in Kallpa Generación S.A. and Samay I S.A., local electric energy companies. Summary: Claims arising out of a regulatory agency’s withdrawal of an exclusive right the local subsidiary Kallpa had been awarded through a bid procedure in 2016 to provide a service related to the frequency of the power generation system, as well as changes to the calculation of transmission line tolls for energy generators, allegedly benefitting state-owned electricity companies to the claimants’ detriment. |
Decided in favour of investor | Peru | Singapore |
17 | 2019 | Mamacocha and Latam Hydro v. Peru |
Investment: Rights under a 20-year concession agreement with the Ministry of Energy and Mines to supply
renewable energy to the national grid, and to construct and operate a hydroelectric plant near the Mamacocha Lagoon in the Arequipa region of Peru (the “Mamacocha Project”). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged breach of a concession agreement for a hydroelectric plant project (the “Mamacocha Project”) through delays of permitting and approval processes, discriminatory and politically motivated interferences by regional authorities, and attempts to unilaterally and unlawfully cancel the project by rendering it impossible to complete. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | United States of America |
18 | 2019 | Panamericana Televisión and others v. Peru |
Investment: Investments in Panamericana Televisión S.A. Summary: Claims arising out of a 2001 judicial resolution placing Panamericana Televisión under temporary administration, suspending the rights of its shareholders as well as the exercise of the functions of its board of directors. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | Switzerland |
19 | 2018 | Corporación América and Kuntur Wasi v. Peru |
Investment: 40-year concession contract for the construction and operation of an airport at Chinchero, a town in South-East Peru. Summary: Claims arising out of Peru’s cancellation of a contract to design, build and operate a new airport. |
Pending | Peru | Argentina |
20 | 2018 | Enagás v. Peru (I) |
Investment: A 25% stake in a 34-year concession to build a 1100-kilometre natural gas pipeline, known as the Gasoducto del Sur Peruano (“GSP”) pipeline project. Summary: Claims arising out of Peru’s cancellation of a concession contract to build a natural gas pipeline. |
Pending | Peru | Spain |
21 | 2018 | Renco v. Peru (II) |
Investment: Investments in the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex through Doe Run Peru S.R. LTDA (“DRP”), an indirectly owned affiliate through Doe Run Cayman. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged imposition of additional environmental obligations related to the La Oroya mining operations in which the claimant’s affiliate Doe Rue Peru held interests and the Government’s refusal to grant reasonable extensions to complete environmental projects at the site, allegedly forcing the company to cease operations, followed by bankruptcy and liquidation. |
Pending | Peru | United States of America |
22 | 2017 | Lidercón v. Peru |
Investment: Concession contract with the municipality of Lima for the operation of vehicle inspection centres. Summary: Claims arising out of a municipality’s alleged non-compliance with a concession contract that grants the claimant an exclusive right to operate vehicle inspection centres in Lima. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | Spain |
23 | 2016 | Gramercy v. Peru |
Investment: Ownership of 9,700 Peruvian Agrarian Land Reform Bonds (the bonds had been issued to Peruvian citizens in compensation for the expropriation of agrarian land in the late 1960s and acquired by the claimants between 2006 and 2008). Summary: Claims arising out of a 2013 decision of Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal and subsequent Supreme Decrees passed in 2014 that related to the repayment scheme for government-issued land reform bonds. The said decisions prescribed the value of the bonds to be determined by using a specific method, which allegedly diminished the total value of the bonds, owned by the claimants, from USD 1.6 billion to USD 1.1 million. |
Decided in favour of investor | Peru | United States of America |
24 | 2014 | Bear Creek Mining v. Peru |
Investment: Rights under a concession agreement concluded with the claimant to operate the Santa Ana silver mining site in Peru. Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment by the Government of Supreme Decree 032 that revoked claimant's concession to operate the Santa Ana mining project in Peru on the ground that it was no longer in the national interest, resulting in a complete cease of activities at Santa Ana and alleged significant damages to the claimant. |
Decided in favour of investor | Peru | Canada |
25 | 2013 | Exeteco v. Peru |
Investment: Concession for the construction and management of a prison. Summary: Claims arising out of cancellation of a concession to construct and manage a private prison that had been granted to a group of enterprises which included the claimant. |
Discontinued | Peru | Spain |
26 | 2012 | Isolux v. Peru |
Investment: Rights under two concession agreements to build an electrical transmission line in Peru. Summary: Claims arising out of the modification of tender rules by Peru concerning the construction of an electrical transmission line allegedly designed to prevent further participation by the claimant after it had initially qualified, by requiring Isolux a higher bank guarantee as opposed to that required from other bidders. |
Settled | Peru | Spain |
27 | 2011 | Levy and Gremcitel v. Peru |
Investment: Direct and indirect controlling shareholding in Peruvian company that held title to three parcels of land located in the Municipality of Chorrillos, Peru. Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements between the parties concerning the legal effects of three sales contracts of land for a property development project, and the issuance of a resolution by Peru's National Institute of Culture establishing boundaries delimitations that allegedly imposed on the land an intangibility status which did not exist until then and hence rendered claimants' project meaningless. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | France |
28 | 2011 | Renco v. Peru (I) |
Investment: Interests in the mining project of La Oroya held through a wholly-owned affiliate; rights under certain stock transfer agreement and guaranty agreement. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged arbitrary and unfair application of government measures and contracts related to interests in the mining operations in La Oroya, which Renco owned through its wholly-owned affiliate, Doe Run Peru S.R. LTDA. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | United States of America |
29 | 2011 | World Callao v. Peru |
Investment: Rights under a concession agreement granted by the Peruvian Government to build and operate a pier at Lima's port of Callao. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged Government discriminatory treatment by not allowing the claimants to participate in the bidding for the North Pier of Callao's Port, as well as the alleged lack of compensation to the investor for granting better conditions to the current operator of the North Pier which allegedly affected the economic balance of the concession agreement of the South Pier and the competitive conditions guaranteed by the State. |
Discontinued | Peru | United Kingdom |
30 | 2010 | Convial Callao v. Peru |
Investment: Rights under a concession agreement to build and operate a toll highway in Peru; financing for the construction of the project. Summary: Claims arising out of the earlier termination by the Callao municipal government of a concession to construct a toll highway near Lima previously granted to the claimants. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | Argentina |
31 | 2010 | De Levi v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding in the French-owned banking institution Banco Nuevo Mundo (BNM). Summary: Claims arising out of an emergency regime for financial institutions put in place by Peru in 2000 to facilitate the restructuring of the banking sector and alleged measures by the oversight agency for banking, SBS, leading to the bankruptcy of the bank in which the claimant had invested after considering that the institution had failed to meet payment obligations. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | France |
32 | 2007 | Tza Yap Shum v. Peru |
Investment: Majority shareholding in a Peruvian company engaged in the purchase and export of fish flour to Asian markets. Summary: Claims arising out of the seizure of the bank account of claimant's enterprise due to tax debt and other alleged actions undertaken by Peruvian tax authorities that resulted in the substantive deprivation of claimant's investment. |
Decided in favour of investor | Peru | China |
33 | 2003 | Industria Nacional de Alimentos v. Peru |
Investment: Permits for the construction of a pasta factory located in the Municipality of Lima. Summary: Claims arising out of the revocation by the Municipality of Lima of construction permits previously granted to the investor and of local decrees purporting to expropriate the investor's land for environmental reasons. |
Decided in favour of State | Peru | Chile |
34 | 1998 | Compagnie Minière v. Peru |
Investment: Shareholding in project company for the construction and operation of a gold mine in Peru. Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over a gold exploitation project for the construction and operation of a gold mine in the highlands of northern Peru. |
Settled | Peru | France |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2020 | Consorcio Cementero and others v. Bolivia |
Investment: Majority shareholding in Sociedad Boliviana de Cementos (“Soboce”), which held a 33.34% share in Fábrica Nacional de Cemento S.A. (“Fancesa”). Summary: Claims arising out of a Government decree in 2010 nationalizing Soboce’s shareholding of 33.34 per cent in Fancesa, a national cement company. |
Decided in favour of State | Bolivia, Plurinational State of | Peru |
2 | 2018 | Abanto v. Venezuela |
Investment: Ownership of Omnivisión C.A., a local company holding telecommunications licences, via an indirect shareholding of 100 per cent. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged seizure of the claimant’s telecommunications company, including the eviction of the company’s employees from the property and the company’s placement under the control of a court-appointed audit board, due to alleged connections to criminal wrongdoing by third parties. According to the claimant, the company was transferred to private owners connected to the Government and subsequently dismantled. |
Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Peru |
3 | 2013 | Nationals of Peru 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 | Peru |
4 | 2010 | Oiltanking v. Bolivia |
Investment: Shareholding in Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos de Bolivia, a fuel storage and pipeline company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's 2008 nationalization of the claimants' shares in a company engaged in the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons, following failed negotiations between the State and the company concerning the amount invested and the compensation owed. |
Settled | Bolivia, Plurinational State of |
Germany Peru |
5 | 1998 | Olguin v. Paraguay |
Investment: Capital contributions to finance the installation of a corn products plant in Paraguay; ownership of investment titles in return for such contributions. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged mistreatment received by Mr. Olguin from the Paraguayan authorities relating to his investment in a company for the manufacture and distribution of food products in Paraguay, including the alleged Government's failure to properly supervise the financial institution where the claimant's capital contributions were deposited. |
Decided in favour of State | Paraguay | Peru |