KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 12 (November 2026)
November 15, 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 have reported on the following awards:
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Arbitrator awarded USD 39,647.50 in fees and USD 2,021.75 in costs to a delivery driver who recovered USD 2,510.29 on her minimum-wage claims. She held that contractual caps on counsel's hourly rate and number of attorneys could not restrict unwaivable FLSA rights, and rejected a strict proportionality requirement between the damages recovered and the fees awarded.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Arbitrator dismissed the claims of an attorney and his firm for further contingency fees and awarded their former client USD 685,442.38 for malpractice in handling his application for catch-up payments from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. Rusnak had terminated the retainer with good cause. Although Ambush also breached the standard of care in handling the punitive damages claim, the alleged USD 7 million loss was speculative and no damages were awarded on that claim. Ambush could retain fees already earned from Fund payments but was entitled to no further fees.
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose under a GS Bank GM Rewards Credit Card Account between an individual consumer (Claimant) and a credit card issuer (Respondent), concerning the reporting of the Account to consumer reporting agencies. Claimant alleged that Respondent violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to investigate four dispute letters sent between October 2024 and May 2025, and sought USD 9,500.00 in damages, deletion of the tradeline and related equitable relief. Respondent counterclaimed for USD 7,108.81 as the outstanding Account balance. The Arbitrator dismissed all of Claimant’s claims, holding that the dispute letters were sent directly to Respondent rather than to a consumer reporting agency and that Claimant therefore lacked standing; damages for credit harm, time spent, and emotional distress were deemed speculative and unsupported. Respondent’s counterclaim was sustained on an account-stated theory and Claimant was ordered to pay USD 7,108.81, with Respondent’s claims for attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-award interest denied.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Arbitrator awarded KAT Excavation USD 457,824.77 for Extra Work under fraudulent misrepresentation and quantum meruit. Its five contract claims failed for non-compliance with the Subcontract's conditions precedent, including notice by certified mail. Those provisions did not bar the tort and equitable claims.
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose under a Services Agreement (MSA) between a worker safety program provider and a physical therapy referral network on one side, and a large national grocery retailer on the other, concerning unpaid program fees, unreimbursed expenses, and alleged misuse of intellectual property. Atlas claimed that Albertsons owed it the full contractual annual program fee for each year of the MSA's two-year term, and damages resulting from Albertsons's failure to renew the MSA for a third year as allegedly promised in exchange for Atlas's agreement to reduce its pricing by approximately 50%. MOI claimed it was owed compensation under the MSA for physical therapy referrals directed to its network. The Arbitrator found that the parties had orally modified the MSA's pricing terms and that the reduced pricing was supported by adequate consideration in the form of Atlas's opportunity to pursue further business with Albertsons. Atlas's claims for the original contract price and for a promised third year were therefore rejected. MOI's claims failed entirely as it was found not to have been providing services under the MSA. Atlas was awarded USD 93,625.00 for API software development costs, with all remaining claims denied.
Clion Limited v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A. (First Partial Award), 14 April 2023
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Sole Arbitrator allowed the Owners' claims for USD 837,661.33 in unpaid bunkers and hire, together with contractual interest and costs. PDVSA had filed no defence despite extensions and a peremptory order. The Arbitrator examined the Owners' evidence and underlying documents and found the claims proved. All other issues were reserved.
Mısra Yalçın, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose out of a Settlement Agreement dated November 27, 2018, which resolved lawsuits and claims between the parties filed in the United States and China. Under the Settlement Agreement, Claimant Dr. Jianxun “Bill” Gao agreed to sell his shares in the Sinova Companies in exchange for upfront payments totaling USD 3.05 million (comprising, inter alia, stock purchase consideration, a non-competition and non-disclosure fee) and Annual Fee of up to USD 500,000 per year for a ten-year period beginning in 2021. Claimant alleged that Respondents breached the Settlement Agreement by miscalculating the 2017 Revenue baseline, improperly applying cost adjustments to the Annual Fee, and failing to provide timely quarterly and annual accounting reports under penalty of perjury. Claimant sought damages for underpayment of the Annual Fees for 2021, 2022, and 2023, with interest, liquidated damages, and a declaratory judgment on how future Annual Fees should be calculated. In the Corrected Interim Award, the Arbitrator found that Respondents breached the Settlement Agreement by underpaying the Annual Fees and by failing to provide timely sworn accounting reports. The Arbitrator awarded damages of USD 96,436 for 2021, USD 319,765 for 2022, and USD 230,961 for 2023, with prejudgment interest. A declaratory judgment was issued prescribing the methodology for calculating Annual Fees from 2024 through 2031. Claimant’s liquidated damages claim was denied, as the evidence did not establish bad faith or reckless disregard on the part of Respondents. The Corrected Interim Award clarified the original Interim Award dated October 1, 2025, by adding a detailed step-by-step methodology for calculating Key RM cost adjustments.
Gaurav Lavania, ITA Assistant Editor
The Sole Arbitrator awarded Tamburro USD 431,300 in deferred, Managing Director and profit share bonuses. The deferred bonus was payable after deducting tax reserves and Caruso's equity payback from available cash; further operating expenses could not be deducted under the bonus email. The employer could not unilaterally rescind the promised profit share. Its confidentiality counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence, while its non-compete and non-solicitation counterclaims failed for lack of proven damages despite findings of breach.
Emergofin B.V. and Velbay Holdings Ltd. v. Ukraine (Award), ICSID Case No. ARB/16/35, 01 May 2026
Diora Ziyaeva, ITA Reporter for ICSID
In its Final Award on quantum and costs, an ICSID tribunal held that a market valuation of shares in a business prior to expropriation is not the only legally permissible method of quantifying loss for unlawful expropriation of those shares. It awarded Claimants restitutionary damages of the purchase price of shares in a business rather than the market value at the time of the expropriation because (1) this form of relief was appropriate because of the denial of justice and was endorsed by international law and confirmed by Respondent’s domestic law; (2) Respondent assigned value to owning the shares and exercising full control of the company; and (3) Respondent was unjustly enriched because it benefited from both the purchase price originally paid and the shares it expropriated.
Diora Ziyaeva, ITA Reporter for ICSID
In a dispute arising from two uncontrolled releases of gas (blowouts) from wells at Bangladesh’s Chattak field in 2005, an ICSID tribunal found Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. in breach of the Joint Venture Agreement for the first blowout but not the second, and awarded Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration Production Company Limited compensation for lost gas, restoration of atmospheric damage caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, disruption to schooling and residual stress, suffering and serious inconvenience experienced by the local population.
Hela Schwarz GmbH v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19, 10 December 2025
Kitty Zheng, ITA Reporter for ICSID
An ICSID Tribunal constituted under the Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments dated 1 December 2003 (the “BIT”) dismissed all claims brought by a German investor arising from the expropriation of its wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary's land use rights and buildings by the Jinan Municipal Government in connection with a large-scale urban redevelopment project.
Diora Ziyaeva, Shalin Shah, Krystal Lee, ITA Reporters for ICSID
The ICSID Tribunal determined that Spain breached the fair and equitable treatment standard under Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty by dismantling the incentive framework for renewable energy investments that were grandfathered under Royal Decree 661/2007.
Société des Mines de Loulo S.A. v. Republic of Mali (Award), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/16, 02 June 2016
Diora Ziyaeva, Ana Milena Vives, ITA Reporters for ICSID
Claimant Société des Mines de Loulo S.A. brought an ICSID claim against the Republic of Mali under their 1993 Establishment Agreement. The dispute centered on whether new tax assessments, including a withholding tax (IBIC) and VAT penalties, violated the agreement's fiscal stabilization clause. The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction over the tax dispute and held that Mali breached the agreement by imposing new, unstabilized fiscal rules—specifically the IBIC withholding method and the VAT penalties—that were not applicable to the investor.
Adam Weir, ITA Assistant Editor
Applying the customary rule of full reparation, the tribunal held that once Venezuela arranged payment to a Brazilian company, it had to arrange payment to the Claimant too. It ordered Venezuela to pay US$ 58,870,898 in compensation, plus US$ 46,624,436 in interest from 31 May 2011 to the date of the award. Interest runs at LIBOR + 4% compounded annually, and the same rate continues until payment. The tribunal rejected the higher rates the Claimant proposed and the risk-free rate Venezuela proposed. All amounts were free of Venezuelan tax. Venezuela must also pay 70% of the arbitration costs and of the Claimant’s legal costs.
Hagar Radman, ITA Assistant Editor
The dispute arose under a trademark licence agreement between the Claimant, the former owner of the BLAUPUNKT brand, and the Respondent, a now-dissolved California manufacturer and distributor licensed to sell BLAUPUNKT-branded car audio and multimedia products in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The Claimant terminated the licence in May 2022 on the basis of alleged material breaches, the deliberate delivery of a defective product to a customer, unauthorised use of third-party technology marks, and a persistent failure to submit products for quality-control approval, and subsequently brought claims for breach of contract and, under United States law, for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, unfair competition and passing off arising from the Respondent's continued sale of BLAUPUNKT-branded products after termination. The Respondent counterclaimed for wrongful repudiation and unlawful tortious interference. The Arbitrator found that the Claimant had validly terminated the licence for material breach, that the Respondent's post-termination sales constituted wilful trademark counterfeiting and infringement under United States law, and that the Respondent's counterclaims failed. The Claimant was awarded contractual damages, an account of the Respondent's profits automatically trebled under Section 35(b) of the Lanham Act, a permanent injunction and ancillary relief, its legal costs, the costs of the arbitration, and post-award interest.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
November 14, 2026
