Lao Holdings NV V Lao People's Democratic Republic (ICSID Case
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES WASHINGTON, D.C. In the arbitration proceeding between LAO HOLDINGS N.V. Claimant and THE LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Respondent ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6 AWARD Members of the Tribunal The Honourable Ian Binnie, C.C., Q.C. Professor Bernard Hanotiau Professor Brigitte Stern Secretary of the Tribunal Ms. Catherine Kettlewell Date of dispatch to the Parties:6 August 2019 REPRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES Representing Lao Holdings N.V.: Representing The Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Ms. Deborah Deitsch-Perez Mr. David J. Branson Mr. Jeffrey T. Prudhomme Beijing Mr. Alexander Hinckley People’s Republic of China Stinson LLP 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 and Dallas, Texas 75219-4259 United States of America Mr. John D. Branson Ms. Emily Doll Mr. Russ Ferguson and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP One Wells Fargo Center Dr. Todd Weiler 301 South College Street Barrister & Solicitor Suite 3500 #19 – 2014 Valleyrun Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28202 London, Ontario N6G 5N8 United States of America Canada and Mr. Ken Kroot Chief Litigation Officer Lao Holdings N.V. L.G. Smith Boulevard 62, Miramar Building, Suite 304, Oranjestad, Aruba 3 FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BIT or Treaty Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, signed on 16 May 2003, in force since 1 May 2005 BIT II Proceedings Proceedings between Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/2)/ Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (ICSID Case No. ADHOC/17/1) C(B)-[XX] Claimants’ Exhibits C(S)-[XX] Sanum’s Exhibits in PCA Proceeding C(LH)-[XX] LHNV’s Exhibits CLA(B)-[XX] or CLA-[XX] Claimants’ Legal Authorities CLA(LH)-[XX] LHNV Legal Authorities Claimant’s Memorial Claimant’s Memorial dated 22 July 2013 Claimant’s Reply Claimant’s Reply and Opposition to Respondent’s Counterclaims dated 9 May 2014 Claimant Lao Holding NV Claimants Lao Holding NV and Sanum Investments Limited Decision on the Second Material Breach Tribunal’s Decision on the Merits of the Claimants’ Second Material Breach Application, dated 15 December 2017 E&Y Ernst & Young First Material Breach Application Claimant’s First Material Breach Application dated 4 July 2014 FTA Flat Tax Agreement between Laos and Savan Vegas dated 21 September 2009 Gaming Assets Savan Vegas Casino, Lao Bao Slot Club and Savannakhet Ferry Terminal Slot Club Government or Respondent Respondent Government of The Lao People's Democratic Republic Hearing Hearing on the Merits of Second Material Breach Application held 3 to 7 September 2018 in Singapore 4 ICSID or the Centre International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ICSID-AF Rules Arbitration Rules (Additional Facility) of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ICSID Convention Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States dated 18 March 1965 Laos-China BIT Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of The Lao People’s Democratic Republic Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, dated 31 January 1993. LHNV or Claimant Lao Holdings NV LHNV’s Reply Claimant’s Reply and Opposition to Respondent’s Counterclaims dated 9 May 2014 LHRE-[XX] Respondent’s Exhibits LHRA-[XX] Respondent’s Legal Authorities MaxGaming MaxGaming Consulting Services Limited (Macau) MIC Ministry of Information and Culture Paksong PDA Project Development Agreement by and between The Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Sanum Investments, Nouansavanh Construction Co. Ltd., and Mr. Sittixay Xaysana dated 10 August 2007 Paksong Vegas Paksong Vegas Hotel and Casino Participation Agreement Participation Agreement for Thanaleng by and between Sanum and ST Holdings dated 4 October 2008 (Exhibit (CB)-6) PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration PCA Proceeding PCA proceeding between Sanum Investments Limited (People’s Republic of China) v. the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic – PCA Case No. 2013-13, chaired by Dr. Andrés Rigo Sureda PDA Savan Vegas Project Development Agreement Respondent’s Counter-Memorial Respondent’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits dated 20 February 2014 Respondent’s Rejoinder Respondent’s Rejoinder (Amended) dated 4 June 2014 5 RMC RMC Gaming Management LLC Sanum Sanum Investments Savan Vegas Savan Vegas Hotel and Casino Settlement Deed of Settlement dated 15 June 2014 and Side Letter dated 18 June 2014 SIAC Singapore International Arbitration Centre SRE-[XX] Respondent’s Exhibits in PCA Proceeding ST ST Holdings Thanaleng Thanaleng Slot Club Amended Transcript, [Day], p. [page], Transcript of the Hearing [lines] UNCAC United Nations Convention Against Corruption VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................10 2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...............................................................................................12 3. OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS ..........................................................................................23 Laos: Claimants’ Investments in Laos ...................................................................23 The Original Treaty Claims ...................................................................................24 Claims and Counterclaims .....................................................................................25 The Settlement and its Aftermath ..........................................................................25 Delimitation of the Relief Presently Sought by the Claimants ..............................26 4. RELEVANT ARTICLES OF THE BIT ............................................................................27 The Recitals ...........................................................................................................27 5. OTHER MATTERS...........................................................................................................30 Other Legal Provisions ..........................................................................................30 Tribunal’s Analysis ................................................................................................31 Clarification on the Nature of the Respondent’s Illegality Claims ........................31 6. THE RESPONDENT’S THRESHOLD POSITION IS THAT THE CLAIMS OUGHT NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED BY REASON OF THE CLAIMANTS’ BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION ..............................................................................................................................32 Evidence of Bribery and Corruption is Relevant in Respect of Criminality Both at the Time of Investment and During Subsequent Performance ..........................................35 6.1.1. The Respondent’s Argument .................................................................................35 6.1.2. The Claimant’s Argument......................................................................................36 6.1.3. The Tribunal’s Ruling ............................................................................................37 The Applicable Standard of Proof .........................................................................38 6.2.1. The Respondent’s Argument .................................................................................38 6.2.2. The Claimant’s Argument......................................................................................39 7 6.2.3. The Tribunal’s Ruling ............................................................................................40 Failure of the Respondent to Investigate and Prosecute Persons who Allegedly Accepted Bribes .................................................................................................................41 6.3.1. First Allegation – Bribes to Obtain the 2009 Flat Tax Agreement ........................41 6.3.1.1. The Respondent’s Argument .....................................................................41 6.3.1.2. The Claimant’s Argument..........................................................................44 6.3.1.3. The Tribunal’s Ruling ................................................................................45 6.3.2. Second Allegation – Bribes to Extend the Flat Tax Agreement After Expiry of the 5-Year Term .......................................................................................................................45 6.3.2.1. The Respondent’s Argument .....................................................................45 6.3.2.2. The Claimant’s Argument..........................................................................47 6.3.2.3. The Tribunal’s Ruling ................................................................................47 6.3.3. Third Allegation – The Claimants Paid US $500,000 in Bribes in 2012 to (i) Shut Down the E&Y Audit of Savan Vegas and (ii) to Cause the Government to Shut Down the Thanaleng Slot Club to the Disadvantage of ST Holdings ................................................47 6.3.3.1. The E&Y Audit ..........................................................................................48 6.3.3.1.1. The Respondent’s Argument .....................................................................49 6.3.3.1.2. The Claimant’s Argument..........................................................................50