INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ITALBA CORPORATION Claimant v. ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY Respondent ICSID Case No. ARB/16/9 COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY January 30, 2017 The Spanish version of the Counter-Memorial dated 30 January 2017 is the original version. In the event of a discrepancy between the original text and the English translation, the original Spanish text prevails. Paul S. Reichler Clara E. Brillembourg Constantinos Salonidis Ofilio J. Mayorga Melinda Kuritzky Patricia Cruz Trabanino José Manuel García Rebolledo FOLEY HOAG LLP 1717 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 A. Lack of Jurisdiction..................................................................................................1 B. Lack of Merit ...........................................................................................................5 1. Non-Issuance of a License ...........................................................................7 2. The 2011 Revocations..................................................................................9 3. The 2013 Assignment to Dedicado ............................................................10 4. The TCA’s Judgment .................................................................................11 C. Lack of Damages ...................................................................................................12 II. There Is No Jurisdiction over This Dispute ...................................................................... 17 A. Italba Has Failed to Prove It Is or Has Been the Owner of Trigosul .....................19 B. Italba Has No Right to Enjoy the Benefits of the Treaty between Uruguay and the United States ....................................................................................................25 1. Applicable Legal Standard .........................................................................25 2. The Requirements for Invoking the Denial of Benefits Clause Are Met in This Case ........................................................................................28 a. Italba Has No Substantial Business Activities in the United States ..............................................................................................28 b. Italba Is Controlled by an Italian National, Dr. Alberelli ..............32 C. Italba’s Claims Were Already Time-Barred When Italba Filed Its Notice of Arbitration on February 16, 2016 ..........................................................................34 1. Applicable Legal Standard .........................................................................34 2. Italba’s Claims Were Already Time-Barred ..............................................37 a. URSEC’s Alleged Failure to “Update” Trigosul’s Authorization for Provision of Services ........................................38 b. Revocation of the Frequencies Allocated to Trigosul....................41 c. Allocation of Frequencies to Dedicado..........................................44 i d. Claims Relating to Compliance with the TCA Judgment ..............46 D. Trigosul’s Authorization to Provide Services and Allocation of Frequencies Do Not Qualify as “Investments” under the Treaty ...............................................50 III. Even If the Tribunal Were to Examine the Merits of the Dispute, It Would Not Find Any Breach of Uruguay´s Obligations under the Treaty .................................................. 57 A. Uruguay Did Not Violate Its Obligations with Respect to the Non- Authorization of a New License between 2003 and 2011 .....................................58 1. The 2003 Regulations Did Not Affect Trigosul’s Authorization or Frequency Allocation .................................................................................60 2. URSEC Was Not Required to Grant Trigosul a New License or an “Updated” License .....................................................................................65 3. Uruguay Did Not Treat Trigosul in a Discriminatory Manner nor in a Manner Less Favorable Than Its Competitors ...........................................75 4. Uruguay Did Not Accord Unfair or Inequitable Treatment to Trigosul ....83 5. Uruguay Did Not Breach the Obligation to Provide Full Protection and Security to Trigosul .............................................................................92 B. Uruguay Did Not Breach Its Treaty Obligations When It Revoked Trigosul’s Authorization and Frequency Allocation ...............................................................96 1. The Authorization to Provide Services and the Allocation of Frequencies Were Provisional and Revocable ...........................................97 2. The Revocation Was Made on the Basis of the Efficient Use of the Spectrum and the Public Interest .............................................................100 3. After the TCA’s Judgment, URSEC Offered to Return the Revoked Frequencies to Trigosul............................................................................113 C. Uruguay Did Not Breach the Treaty in Allocating to Dedicado the Frequencies Previously Allocated to Trigosul .....................................................117 1. Uruguay Cannot Expropriate Rights That Do Not Exist .........................117 2. Granting Dedicado’s Request for the Frequencies Was Reasonable Because It Was Not in Like Circumstances Compared to Trigosul ........121 3. The Allocation to Dedicado Did Not Breach the Obligations of Article 5 to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment or Full Protection and Security .............................................................................................126 ii D. Uruguay Did Not Breach the Treaty by Its Alleged “Failure to Comply” with the Judgment of the Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo (TCA).............128 1. Uruguay’s Actions Following the Judgment Were Reasonable and with the Purpose of Complying with the Judgment .................................130 2. There Was No Expropriation with Respect to the State’s Compliance with the TCA Judgment ...........................................................................136 3. The Was No Breach of the Obligations under Article 5 to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment or Full Protection and Security ........................140 IV. The Claimant Does Not Have Any Right to Compensation ........................................... 145 A. Uruguay Did Not Cause Any Damages to Trigosul ............................................147 1. Even If It Were Proven That Uruguay Illegally Deprived It of Its Investment, the Claimant Did Not Suffer Damages Because Trigosul Did Not Have Market Value ....................................................................149 a. The Correct Valuation Method: Trigosul Had No Market Value ............................................................................................151 b. The Correct Valuation Date: The Day Before the Alleged Expropriation ...............................................................................156 c. Even Applying the Incorrect Valuation Methodology Proposed by the Claimant, the Fair Market Value of the “Lost” Investment is Zero........................................................................162 2. Trigosul Did Not Lose a Single Business Opportunity Because of Uruguay....................................................................................................175 a. Trigosul Did Not Lose a Single Business Opportunity Because of the Lack of an Updated License ..............................................176 b. Trigosul Did Not Lose a Single Business Opportunity as a Result of the Revocation of Its Frequency Allocation and Its Authorization ...............................................................................180 c. The Lost Profits Calculation by the Claimant’s Damages Expert is Speculative....................................................................186 B. Trigosul Relinquished Its Right to Compensation by Rejecting Uruguay’s Offers to Reinstate Its Frequencies ......................................................................193 C. The Claimant’s Request for Interest Based on Italba’s Cost of Capital or, Alternatively, Uruguay’s Borrowing Rate is Exaggerated and Groundless ........195 iii 1. The Applicable Interest Rate Should Be a Risk-Free Rate ......................195 2. Compound Interest Is Inappropriate in View of the Absence of Special Circumstances .............................................................................200 D. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................203 V. Conclusions and Request for Relief ................................................................................ 204 iv I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a completely fraudulent case. 2. It has been fabricated with forged signatures, falsified documents, unsupported assertions, and lies. There is nothing honest or honorable about it. There is no legitimate dispute here. To the contrary, it is a cynical effort to extort a vast sum of money from Uruguay, including by criminal means, without any justification in law or fact. 3. All of the Claimant’s claims should be rejected. First, there is no jurisdiction. Second, there is no merit to any of its claims. Third, there is no evidence of compensable harm or damages. A. LACK OF JURISDICTION