Uruguay
Results: 5
Results: 1
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2019 | LARAH v. Uruguay |
Investment: Indirect shareholding of 75% in Pluna Líneas Aéreas Uruguayas S.A. (“Pluna”) via Leadgate Investment Corp., a subsidiary of the claimant. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision to nationalize and subsequently liquidate the airline Pluna in which Leadgate, the claimant’s private equity fund, held a majority stake. |
Pending | Uruguay | Panama |
2 | 2017 | Agarwal and Mehta v. Uruguay |
Investment: Investments in the Valentines iron ore project through Minera Aratirí that held several prospecting and exploration permits, granting it an exclusive right to obtain the exploitation concession for the Valentines project. Summary: Claims arising out of allegedly arbitrary and non-transparent conduct of the Government in relation to the claimants’ investments in the Valentines iron ore project, including repeated regulatory changes with respect to the port terminal (which had to be built as part of the project), ultimately leading to the project’s shutdown. |
Decided in favour of State | Uruguay | United Kingdom |
3 | 2016 | Italba v. Uruguay |
Investment: Ownership of subsidiary Trigosul S.A., which held a wireless spectrum licence. Summary: Claims arising out of revocation in 2011 of a wireless spectrum licence held since 2000 by the claimant’s subsidiary Trigosul. The State regulatory authority allegedly transferred the licence to another telecommunications company and did not comply with an administrative court’s decision to reinstate the licence. |
Decided in favour of State | Uruguay | United States of America |
4 | 2010 | Philip Morris v. Uruguay |
Investment: Immovable and movable property, shares and intellectual property rights, including the ownership of several tobacco trademarks and manufacture facilities of tobacco cigarettes for the Uruguayan market sold under several brand names in accordance to license agreements. Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment of certain ordinance by the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health and the enactment of a Presidential decree prohibiting different packaging or presentations for cigarettes sold under a given brand and mandating graphic images purported to illustrate the adverse health effects of smoking. |
Decided in favour of State | Uruguay | Switzerland |
5 | 1998 | Benhamou v. Uruguay |
Investment: Indirect shareholding in Banco Pan de Azúcar (BPA), an Uruguayan bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the Central Bank’s intervention in the management of Banco Pan de Azúcar (BPA). |
Decided in favour of State | Uruguay | France |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2019 | Maeso v. Venezuela |
Investment: Investment in Racing Tobacco, a local company engaged in the import of tobacco products into Venezuela. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged revocation of an tobacco import and sales licence granted to the claimant’s local company Racing Tobacco, and seizure of the claimant’s shipments of cigarettes from Uruguay to the free port of Margarita Island on the ground that the company violated a law prohibiting the sale of imported cigarettes at a lower price than those produced domestically. |
Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Uruguay |