Investment arbitration

Nykomb v. Latvia

27.08.2014

Annotation: Nykomb, a Swedish company, acquired a Latvian subsidiary (Windau) in order to engage in the business of producing and supplying electric power in Latvia. In 1997 Windau entered into a contract with Latvenergo, a State-owned Latvian company and a sole purchaser and distributor of electricity through the national grid. Under the contract, Windau undertook to construct a power plant and Latvenergo agreed to purchase the electric power from Windau at a price composed of two elements – the general tariff and a multiplier, both set by Latvian laws. At the time of concluding the contract, the Latvian law provided for a multiplier of two (a “double tariff”) to be paid during the initial eight years of plant operation. However, that law was modified in October 1998 to provide for 0.75 tariff. After the construction of the plant was finished in 1999, a dispute arose between Windau and Latvenergo about the proper price. Latvenergo refused to pay the double tariff and paid 0.75 tariff instead. Nykomb initiated arbitral proceedings against Latvia under the Energy Charter Treaty.

Annex:

Nykomb_600.pdf

UAB E energija (Lithuania) v. Latvia

23.09.2014

Annotation: pending

Annex:

Amto v. Ukraine

27.08.2014

Annotation: The suit was launched in 2005 by Amto, an investment company based in Riga. In 1999, Amto purchased a majority stake in a Ukraine company called EYUM-10, which serviced the Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear power company, Energoatom. Outstanding debt owed to EYUM-10 by the ailing nuclear power company formed the foundation of Amto’s case against the Ukraine. According to Amto, its efforts to invest in the Ukraine’s nuclear power sector via EYUM-10 were met with resistance, and once the investment was made, the state-owned power company deliberately refused payment of debts owed to EYUM-10.

Annex:

Amto_Ukraine_Award_602.pdf