Disponible uniquement sur Etudier
  • Pages : 10 (2366 mots )
  • Téléchargement(s) : 0
  • Publié le : 29 mars 2011
Lire le document complet
Aperçu du document
February 2005
**Indicates date Notice of Intent to File a Claim was filed, the first step in the NAFTA investor-state process when an investor notifies a government that it intends to bring a NAFTA Chapter 11 suit against that government. *Indicates date Notice of Arbitration filed, the second step in the NAFTA investor-state processwhen investor notifies an arbitration body that it is ready to commence arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11. The two venues for the adjudication of NAFTA Chapter 11 disputes are the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the United Nation’s Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Corporation or Investor


Damages Sought(U.S.$)

Status of Case


Cases & Claims Against the United States
Loewen Oct. 30, 1998* ICSID $725 million Dismissed Canadian funeral conglomerate challenged large Mississippi state court damage award granted by a jury in a contract dispute suit by a local company claiming Loewen engaged in anti-competitive, predatory business practices. June 2003 – Claim dismissed on procedural basis.Tribunal found that Loewen’s reorganization as a U.S. corporation under U.S. bankruptcy law destroyed the firm’s ability to bring the NAFTA claim as a foreign investor. Canadian real estate developer challenged City of Boston’s actions in development contract dispute and adverse state supreme court ruling that denied the firm compensation on the grounds that city actions were shielded by principle ofsovereign immunity. October 2002 – Claim dismissed on procedural grounds. Tribunal found that the majority of Mondev’s claims, including of expropriation, were time-barred meaning that the dispute on which the claim was based predated NAFTA and that court rulings were well founded in state law. Canadian corporation which produces methanol, a component chemical of gasoline additive MTBE,challenges California phase-out of MTBE, which is contaminating drinking water throughout the state. August 2002 – Jurisdictional ruling indicates that because Methanex only produces a component ingredient of MTBE, methanol, not the actual product, company is to “distant” from the MTBE ban to qualify as a firm harmed by it, suggesting that certain MTBE producers may be qualified to bring similar NAFTAsuits. Methanex allowed to resubmit claim to demonstrate how the MTBE ban was specifically directed toward methanol producers instead of merely affecting them. U.S. government has spent $3 million on legal defense to date on case, which NAFTA supporters are eager to have dismissed permanently on technical grounds for fear of political ramifications if Methanex wins. Canadian steel contractorchallenged U.S. Buy America provision in Virginia highway construction contract. January 2003 – Claim dismissed on procedural grounds. Tribunal found that the basis of the claim constituted “government procurement” and therefore fell under the procurement provisions of NAFTA, Chapter 10, not Chapter 11. Canadian investor challenged U.S. policy of disposing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada site.Investor claims to have patents for alternative waste disposal method and location. Canadian company seeks damages over May 2002 application by the U.S. of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber. Pending Canadian company seeks damages over May 2002 application by the U.S. of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber.

Mondev Sep. 1, 1999*

ICSID$50 million


Methanex Dec. 3, 1999*


$970 million


ADF Group Jul. 19, 2000*


$90 million


James Baird Mar. 15, 2002** Doman May 1, 2002** Canfor Jul. 9, 2002*

Arbitration has not yet commenced Arbitration has not yet commenced UNCITRAL

$13 billion

$513 million

$250 million

Aug. 2, 2002*