This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
THE AUTHORS:
José Daniel Amado, Partner, Miranda & Amado
Luis Alonso Navarro, Partner, Miranda & Amado
Michela Bertello, Associate, Miranda & Amado
Paula Silva, Associate, Miranda & Amado
Arbitration in Peru saw notable developments in 2025.
In investment arbitration, Peru remained an active respondent before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”), with a new claim registered, several ongoing annulment proceedings, and the issuance of the Lupaka v. Peru award (2025).
On the commercial side, high-value public works and public procurement disputes continue to dominate the Peruvian arbitration market, and the high-profile Rutas de Lima v. Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (I) saga continued, with the denial of an unsecured stay of enforcement of the federal judgment confirming the 2020 and 2022 awards by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, on June 17 2025 and the D.C. Circuit’s 24 June 2025 decision affirming that federal judgment. Most recently, on 18 November 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkgranted in part Peru’s request for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, in aid of related Peruvian proceedings. The court ordered Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. and several financial and market institutions to produce due diligence, financial, and banking records concerning Brookfield’s 2016 acquisition of its majority stake in Rutas de Lima, while limiting production where Peruvian bank-secrecy rules apply.
At the legislative level, the General Public Procurement Law (“Law No. 32069”) and its implementing regulation entered into force, and RENACE, the national registry of arbitrators and arbitration centers, became mandatory with the issuance of Supreme Decree 016-2025-JUS.
At the institutional level, the CCL (Center of Arbitration of the Lima Chamber of Commerce) adopted its 2025 Arbitration Rules, which entered into force on 1 March 2025 and replaced the 2017 rules.
Investment Arbitration
New ICSID Claim Registered: Brookfield
On 27 March 2025, ICSID registered a new arbitration between Brookfield v. Peru under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (2008) (“Canada–Peru FTA”). Public statements by the investor indicate a damages claim of approximately USD 2.7 billion arising from measures affecting the Rutas de Lima toll‑road concession, including restrictions on toll collection and subsequent State actions that Brookfield characterizes as expropriatory. The Brookfield filing marks an escalation from prior contract‑based disputes into treaty arbitration and aligns with high‑stakes award‑enforcement actions discussed later in this report.
Ongoing Annulment Proceedings
There are currently five ongoing annulment proceedings arising from earlier ICSID awards—four initiated by Peru and one initiated by the investor. These include:
- APM Terminals v. Peru (II), ARB/21/28,
- Metro de Lima v. Peru (I), ARB/17/3,
- ENAGÁS v. Peru (I), ARB/18/26,
- IC Power v. Peru, ARB/19/19,
- The investor-initiated annulment in Freeport-McMoRan v. Peru, ARB/20/8.
The Lupaka v. Peru Award
On June 30 2025, the tribunal in Lupaka v. Peru rendered its award under the Canada – Peru FTA, arising from the Invicta mining project. The tribunal found that actions of rural communities in Peru amounted to the exercise of governmental authority and were therefore attributable to the Peruvian State.
It further concluded that Peru breached its obligations to provide Full Protection and Security and Fair and Equitable Treatment, and that the investor had been directly expropriated. As a result, the tribunal awarded USD 40.4 million in compensation, plus compound interest from August 2019.
Peru’s Procedural Default in Kuntur Wasi’s Enforcement
On April 8, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Columbia declared Peru “in default” as the State failed to appear to defend itself in the enforcement action for the USD 91 million ICSID award within the statutory 60-day period. This enabled the consortium to seek attachments against Peruvian assets in U.S. territory.
Recognition of the Lima Expresa Award
On 10 September 2025, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (First Civil Commercial Chamber) recognized a Paris-seated arbitral award issued in the dispute Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (“MML”) v. Lima Expresa, the concessionaire of the Línea Amarilla toll-road project. In the arbitration, administered by the CAIP (International Arbitration Chamber of Paris), MML argued that the concession contract and several contract amendments were invalid due to alleged corruption and raised issues concerning the project’s economic equilibrium.
In a partial award rendered in January 2024 and subsequent decisions, the tribunal dismissed the corruption-related claims and upheld the concession framework, granting Lima Expresa compensation in the form of an extension of the concession term. In the recognition proceedings, MML reiterated its corruption allegations as grounds to invoke domestic and international public-policy exceptions. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that unproven allegations or preliminary indications of corruption were insufficient to deny recognition, particularly given the tribunal’s prior assessment of the same allegations and the absence of any final criminal conviction. The ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to rely on corruption-based defenses at the enforcement stage.
Commercial Arbitration
Rutas de Lima Saga
On June 24 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court’s confirmation of two United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) arbitral awards in favor of Rutas de Lima, rejecting the MML’s corruption‑based public‑policy defense and two procedural challenges. The court emphasized the tribunals’ findings that the record lacked a quid‑pro‑quo link between Odebrecht‑related payments and the 2013 Concession Contract or the 2014-2016 amendments and found no prejudice or misconduct in the tribunals’ handling of evidence.
Separately, on June 17 2025, the New York Supreme Court denied the MML an unsecured stay of enforcement of the roughly USD 198.4 million federal judgment registered in New York, holding that the MML neither satisfied the statutory requirement to furnish security nor met the discretionary standard for an unsecured stay. Together, these rulings keep the awards and the U.S. judgment intact and enforceable unless MML posts appropriate security or obtains contrary federal relief.
A New Set of Disputes
In 2020, Peru and the United Kingdom signed a government-to-government agreement (“G2G”) to support the implementation of the Reconstrucción con Cambios program, created after the 2017 El Niño Costero—the coastal warming event that caused severe flooding and landslides—to rebuild and climate-proof schools, hospitals, roads, and flood-defense infrastructure.
Through this partnership, Peru adopted the New Engineering Contract (“NEC”) suite as the standard for many reconstruction works, introducing a contractual model that was relatively new to the local market. This shift has since generated a distinct set of disputes, driven by the challenges of reconciling NEC contract mechanisms, and collaborative-contracting obligations with projects seriously impacted by, among other factors, public funding shortfalls.
Recently, on August 2025, the Autoridad Nacional de Infraestructura (“ANIN”), entity responsible for important projects in the region, suspended funding for many projects, halting works nationwide and threatening public infrastructure programs due to a budget shortfall. Although the Ministry of Economy later transferred resources, the amount covers only about 10% of the debt owed for works already executed, leaving substantial outstanding liabilities, placing projects at risk, and creating potential disputes and claims from contractors.
Legislative Developments
Since the issuance of the Arbitration Law (2008) in Peru, there have been few significant amendments to this framework. Over the past decade, Peru has maintained a solid reputation for having a modern and predictable arbitration framework and specialized institutions. Peru continues to be regarded as one of the most reliable and attractive arbitration venues in Latin America.
The arbitration landscape in Peru continues to be dominated by disputes arising from public procurement. According to the latest data collected by the Peruvian Comptroller General, pending arbitration accounts for 9.1% of the total number of paralyzed public infrastructure projects (222 projects). Although this percentage may appear modest, these cases involve some of the largest and most expensive public infrastructure investments. They account for 44.2% of the public infrastructure budget still pending execution, representing the highest share among all causes of project paralysis.
On 22 April 2025, the General Public Procurement Law (“Law No. 32069”) and Supreme Decree No. 009-2025-EFentered into force, deliberately preserving existing arbitration regulations. However, in August 2025, the Regulation of the National Registry of Arbitrators and Arbitration Centers (“RENACE”) entered into force through Supreme Decree 016-2025-JUS, establishing mandatory registration for both arbitration centers and individual arbitrators.
This reform allegedly aims to address concerns arising from contentious public-procurement arbitrations handled by new or insufficiently supervised arbitral centers. The government considered that a general, centralized registry was necessary to ensure transparency, verify arbitrators’ experience, track challenges and sanctions, and strengthen due process guarantees. Various concerns and criticisms have emerged in response to this new regulation. Practitioners have questioned its potential impact on the autonomy of arbitration institutions, the validity of awards rendered by unregistered arbitrators, and the delays and restrictions imposed on parties in appointing arbitrators.
Institutional Developments
Peru hosts several well-established and reputable arbitration institutions that have contributed significantly to the country’s credibility as an arbitral seat. The CCL (Lima Chamber of Commerce) and AmCham Peru (American Chamber of Commerce of Peru) are widely recognized for their solid procedural frameworks and experience in case administration.
The CCL adopted its 2025 Arbitration Rules, effective 1 March 2025, replacing the 2017 rules. Notable features include updates necessary for the administration of Dispute Resolution Boards (“DRBs”), which have become relevant and widely used in construction dispute resolution in Peru.
Finally, the CCL now allows scrutiny of arbitral awards when expressly agreed by the parties. This practice aligns with those of leading international arbitration institutions, such as the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce). These updates reflect the CCL’s commitment to enhancing procedural efficiency, transparency, and party autonomy.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
José Daniel Amado’s professional practice focuses on Corporate Law, Infrastructure Projects, and International Arbitration, involving major local and international disputes and landmark Peruvian transactions. He was an Associate at WilmerHale, Washington D.C., Partner at Estudio Echecopar, and Head of the Advisory Cabinet of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Founding Partner of Miranda & Amado, currently chairs the ICC Peru Arbitration Commission and serves on the boards of SIAC and CIAM-CIAR. He holds an LL.M. from Harvard (Laylin Prize) and graduated summa cum laude from PUCP.
Luis Alonso Navarro is a Partner at Miranda & Amado. Luis Alonso’s practice focuses on representing clients in complex commercial and investment arbitrations and judicial litigation across the energy, mining, infrastructure, and construction sectors. He’s former international arbitration associate at King & Spalding (New York), joined the firm in 2011. Luis Alonso holds a Law degree from the University of Lima and an LL.M. in International Economic Law from Stanford University. Since 2021, he has been a professor at PUCP and has also taught at the University of Lima.
Michela Bertello’s professional practice focuses on dispute resolution, with a specialization in commercial arbitration. She joined Miranda & Amado as an Associate in 2025. She holds a Dual Degree Master’s in Management and Law (LL.M.) from IE University, with a specialization in international dispute resolution.
Paula Silva’s practice focuses on representing clients in international commercial and investment arbitration, specializing in corporate, construction, infrastructure, and energy disputes. She has extensive experience with ICSID and ICC rules, as well as various national arbitration centers. She joined Miranda & Amado as an Associate in 2023, following her tenure at Osterling Abogados and an internship at ICSID in 2021. Paula graduated summa cum laude from Universidad del Pacífico.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
