KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 1 (January 2026)
July 18, 2026
The Institute of Transnational Arbitration ("ITA"), in collaboration with the ITA Board of Reporters, is happy to inform you that the latest ITA Arbitration Report was published: a free email subscription service available at KluwerArbitration.com delivering timely reports on awards, cases, legislation and current developments from over 60 countries and 12 institutions. To get your free subscription to the ITA Arbitration Report, click here.
The ITA Board of Reporters has reported on the following awards.
Lupaka Gold Corp. v. Republic of Peru (Award), ICSID Case No. ARB/20/46, 30 June 2025
Fabian Kissenkötter, Flavia Caron and Diora Ziyaeva, Dentons, ITA Reporters for ICSID
In Lupaka Gold Corp. v. Peru, the Tribunal analyzed whether the actions of a Rural Community and its members which adversely affected the investment of a foreign investor can be attributable to the State. It answered in the affirmative, holding Peru internationally responsible for the seizure and exploitation of Lupaka’s underground mining operation by the rural Parán Community. The Tribunal considered that the Community could be treated as a “State organ”, or at least as an entity exercising governmental authority, for which Peru bore ultimate responsibility. The Tribunal also found that Peru had breached its obligations of full protection and security as well as fair and equitable treatment. It further held that Peru had expropriated Lupaka’s investment.
Claimant (Creditor) v. Respondent (Debtor), VIAC Case ID No. 2009-1, 01 January 2009
Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) Secretariat, ITA Reporter for VIAC
This case confirms the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals pursuant to the Vienna Rules where arbitration clauses, though imperfectly worded, clearly reflected the parties’ intent to arbitrate under its Rules. The Tribunal applied Austrian law as the seat’s law to determine arbitrability, adopting its broad approach to include all claims with an economic interest. It rejected arguments based on the Respondent’s national law, finding them relevant only at enforcement. The Tribunal affirmed the admissibility of declaratory relief, upheld competence-competence despite parallel court proceedings, and dismissed all jurisdictional objections, reinforcing that minor errors in naming arbitral rules do not defeat an agreement where the institutional intent is evident.
Kairos Manford Private Equity Fund 1 LP v. Zheng Xu, ICDR Case No. 01-24-0005-6552, 06 March 2025
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Tribunal held the Respondent personally liable under the Put Option Agreement dated 18 August 2021, governed by New York law, which granted the Claimant a "Put Option", namely a contractual right to require the Respondent to buy out the Claimant’s investment at a predetermined price formula if Missfresh’s valuation as reflected in the trading price of its American Depository Shares on a US stock exchange, fell below an agreed threshold. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had validly exercised this right through a stockless mechanism under the agreement, entitling it to a cash payment calculated by reference to a fixed price and the prevailing market value of the shares, without any transfer of shares. The Tribunal rejected all defences based on Respondent’s argument that it had not signed the POA in his personal capacity, representative capacity, commercial unreasonableness, lack of consideration, and alleged misunderstanding of contractual obligations. The Claimant was awarded principal, pre-award interest at nine per cent per annum, attorneys’ fees, and arbitration costs. The Respondent was ordered to pay USD 3,598,376, together with pre-award interest at nine per cent per annum, and the Claimant was awarded its legal fees and arbitration costs.
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose from a title-secured loan agreement entered into between a North Carolina resident and a South Carolina title lender. Claimant alleged that TitleMax violated North Carolina consumer protection statutes by charging usurious interest rates and engaging in unlawful lending practices despite a contractual choice of South Carolina law. The Tribunal held that North Carolina law applied due to Respondent’s substantial contacts with the state and found that the loan violated the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act and constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The Tribunal awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory interest, and entitlement to attorneys’ fees, while rejecting Respondent’s constitutional and choice-of-law objections.
Lance LJ Marine v. CBRE, Inc., JAMS Case. No. 5410000320, 26 June 2025
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose under a consulting agreement between AB Science and DMG Consulting regarding the preparation of offering documents for a U.S. venture. AB Science alleged that DMG failed to draft the required private placement memorandum ("PPM") under Phase I of the agreement, thereby breaching the contract. DMG argued that its role was merely advisory, that AB Science failed to provide necessary information, and that delayed payments excused its performance. The ICDR Tribunal, seated in New York, held that DMG had a clear contractual obligation to prepare the PPM and materially breached by failing to do so. The Tribunal awarded AB Science damages, legal costs, arbitration costs, and statutory interest at 9% per annum.
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute concerned a large international sale of personal protective equipment governed by a Purchase and Sale Agreement under which the Claimant agreed to purchase nitrile gloves for a total price of USD 7,968,000. The Claimant alleged that the Second Respondent represented it had immediate availability of conforming Dynarex nitrile gloves and sought relief for Respondent’s alleged defaults, late delivery and related contractual remedies.
Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP v. LI Yan, (2022) S.G.Z.C. No. 4677, 22 July 2024
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arises out of an Agreement of Attorney between the Claimant law firm and its client, the Respondent. The Claimant initiated arbitral proceedings, requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to order the Respondent to pay outstanding attorney’s fees together with interest, on the basis that the Respondent failed to comply with the payment provisions of the Agreement of Attorney, despite the Claimant having represented the Respondent in the relevant proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal, constituted under the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration Rules, upheld Claimant’s claims and ordered Respondent to reimburse the outstanding fees in accordance with the Agreement of Attorney, together with accrued interest.
Gil Shir, et al. v. Atlanta Prime Beverage, LLC, JAMS Case No. 5440000776, 29 July 2024
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
In an arbitration governed by the JAMS Arbitration Rules, the parties were three partners of a company (Chalkboard) who had disagreements concerning the refinancing of the company’s lender (ABC) and the sale of their other company (PWSWA). Respondent voted against these actions at the board meeting, and Claimants argued that Respondent had a conflict of interest with the lender company and failed to act in good faith and in the best interests of their companies. Claimants sought declarations that the refinancing and the company sale could be approved by a majority vote without the affirmative vote of Respondent under the company’s Operating Agreement, and that Respondent could not block these decisions. Respondent denied these allegations and raised a counterclaim, alleging that Claimants violated the operating agreements by negotiating the sale of PWSWA and seeking refinancing. Respondent further argued that the call option under the operating agreements applied. The Arbitrator found that Respondent had a conflict of interest in relation to the ABC loan and had not acted in good faith. Accordingly, the refinancing and the sale of the other company could be approved by a majority vote of any two or more partners. As to the counterclaims, the Arbitrator found that Claimants had not violated the operating agreements and rejected Respondent’s argument that the call provision under the Operating Agreement had been triggered.
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
In an arbitration governed by the CIArb BAS Rules, Claimants are special purpose vehicles, established as part of a corporate structure to provide loans to students at global business schools. Claimants provided Respondent with student loans under separate loan agreements governed by English law. After failing to receive repayments and being unable to reach Respondent, Claimants initiated separate arbitral proceedings against Respondent, seeking the outstanding loan amounts together with post-award interest. The proceedings were later consolidated. Respondent also failed to participate in the arbitrations. In the consolidated arbitration, the Sole Arbitrator found that Respondent had been properly notified of the arbitral proceedings. The Sole Arbitrator further found that Respondent had failed to make the required repayments, and accordingly ordered Respondent to pay the outstanding amounts to Claimants together with post-award interest.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
July 14, 2026
