THE AUTHOR:
Zeyad Abouellail, Senior Legal Officer at Jus Mundi
Arbitration Aftermath with Zeyad Abouellail and Esen Aydın: Your trusted source for the latest post-award developments in the dynamic world of investor-State and commercial arbitration. Back with a fresh perspective, Zeyad focuses on cases involving States, ministries, and public entities, while Esen handles disputes between private parties. From settlements and compliance with awards to recognition, enforcement procedures, annulment, and beyond. Each week, we bring you global insights and updates to navigate this ever-evolving landscape.
Kuntur Wasi and Corporación América v. Peru
Ontario Court Enforces USD 91 Million ICSID Award Against Peru
ICSID Case No. ARB/18/27
Institution: ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)
Tribunal: Lucinda A. Low (President), Enrique Barros Bourie (Appointed by the claimants), José Emilio Nunes Pinto (Appointed by the State)
On 15 May, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“Court”) enforced a USD 91 million ICSID award against Peru, following the state’s failure to appear in the proceedings.
In the Canadian enforcement proceedings, Peru neither served a notice of appearance nor indicated any intention to participate, despite having been served with the notice of application for enforcement in January 2025.
As a result, in an Endorsement Slip, Justice J. Dietrich of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that, pursuant to the ICSID Convention (1965) — implemented in Ontario through the Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act 1999 — the Court is required to recognise the award upon submission of a certified copy. The Court accordingly entered Judgment in the amount of the award.
In May 2024, Peru was ordered to pay Kuntur Wasi USD 91 million in compensation for breaching the Argentina–Peru BIT. Kuntur Wasi subsequently sought to enforce the award in both the United States and Canada.
Peru has also been declared in default in the US enforcement proceedings, which remain pending (see our previous digest here).
Energy Service and EDR v. Senegal
Senegal Withdraws Application for Annulment of ICC Award in Paris
ICC Case No. 26624/AZO/SP/ETT
Institution: ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)
Tribunal: N/A
Seat of arbitration: Paris, France
On 13 May, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed Senegal’s withdrawal of its application to annul an ICC arbitration award reportedly rendered in favour of Energy Service Company and Électricité du Rip (“EDR”).
According to press reports, following an international call for tenders in 2012, EDR was awarded a 25-year contract to electrify the rural areas of Kaolack, Nioro, Fatick, and Gossas. In December 2016, the Senegalese government decided to harmonise electricity tariffs nationwide, reducing the price per kilowatt-hour in rural areas. To offset the resulting shortfall, subsidies were to be paid regularly to the affected private operators.
Reportedly, the arbitration arose from the Ministry of Energy’s unilateral termination of the contract with EDR, following EDR’s refusal to sign the tariff harmonisation agreement under the conditions imposed by the Ministry. EDR declined to sign the addendum due to the lack of long-term resource availability from the Electricity Support Fund (Fonds de soutien à l’électricité), which was responsible for providing compensation.
EDR and Energy Service Company subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings in 2021. In May 2022, Senegal’s request for bifurcation was rejected by the arbitral tribunal. In September 2024, the tribunal issued its final award, which reportedly found against Senegal. The amount of damages awarded has not been disclosed.
According to the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision, Senegal filed its application for annulment in October 2024. However, in March 2025, Senegal withdrew its action. The reasons for the withdrawal remain unknown.
The Lopez-Goyne Family Trust and others v. Nicaragua
US Court Finds that Group of Investors Is Jointly and Severally Liable for Costs Award
ICSID Case No. ARB/17/44
Institution: ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)
Tribunal: Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo (President), José A. Martínez de Hoz, Jr. (Appointed by the claimants), Brigitte Stern (Appointed by the State)
On 5 May, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Court”) granted Nicaragua’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the investors are jointly and severally liable for the costs awarded in the arbitration.
The arbitration had been initiated by a group of 24 individuals, corporations, and trusts holding shares in Industria Oklahoma Nicaragua (“ION”), which held concession rights for oil exploration and exploitation in Nicaragua’s onshore Pacific region. The dispute arose from Nicaragua’s termination of the concession agreement. In March 2023, the arbitral tribunal found that Nicaragua had not breached the CAFTA-DR-USA (2004) and awarded the state USD 1.5 million in costs. In May 2024, Nicaragua sought enforcement of the award in the United States (see our previous digest here).
In February 2025, Nicaragua applied for partial summary judgment, seeking recognition that the investors are jointly and severally liable for the arbitral costs award. The arbitral tribunal had ruled that “Claimants shall pay US$ 1,500,000.00 to Respondent [Nicaragua] in respect of Nicaragua’s costs and expenses.”
The investors argued that liability under the award was several, not joint and several. They claimed that the award is “ambiguous” and that the Court lacked the authority to interpret it, suggesting that Nicaragua should have instead sought clarification under Article 50 of the ICSID Convention.
The Court rejected these arguments, finding that the language of the award was “not consistent with an intent that each claimant be responsible only for some portion of the amount awarded.” It reasoned that the tribunal would have expressly specified any apportionment of liability had that been its intention.
Accordingly, the Court granted Nicaragua’s motion and held that the investors are jointly and severally liable for the costs award.
In October 2024, the Court denied the investors’ motion to dismiss Nicaragua’s enforcement action for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the investors’ ownership of property in California was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zeyad Abouellail is a Senior Legal Officer at Jus Mundi and a PhD candidate & teaching assistant at Paris-Saclay University. His doctoral research focuses on the post-award phase in investment arbitration, alongside his teaching responsibilities in civil and contract law. Zeyad regularly speaks on the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and law. He holds Master’s Degrees in International Business Law from both Paris-Saclay University and Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University. Before joining Jus Mundi, Zeyad interned at several law firms in international arbitration and corporate law in Cairo, Egypt.
![Novo Nordisk A/S v. KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC (I) 3 – A Handy Tool in One’s Arsenal](https://dailyjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/article-collab-JM-2-120x86.jpg)
