Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Case Note on the Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in Clorox v. Venezuela

Case Note on the Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in Clorox v. Venezuela Case Note on the Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in Clorox v. Venezuela ANDREEA NICA Investment – Investment treaty arbitration – Annulment proceedings – Switzerland – Abuse of process – UNCITRAL Arbitration Background of the Case In 1990, United States-based The Clorox International Company (“Clorox International”) established Clorox Venezuela in order to produce and distribute Clorox cleaning products in Venezuela. On 15 April 2011, Clorox International incorporated its subsidiary in Spain (“Clorox Spain”) and transferred 100% of its shares in Clorox Venezuela to Clorox Spain. Clorox Spain (the “Claimant”) argued that Venezuela adopted a number of regulatory measures which negatively affected its investment and forced Clorox Venezuela to cease operations. Noteworthy, the Claimant referred to the implementation of controlled prices on its cleaning products culminating with the governmental takeover of Clorox Venezuela’s assets, the adoption of protective labor laws, the failure to grant certain VAT reimbursements, and the failure to grant requests for foreign currency. On 18 May 2015, the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings under the 2010 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (“UNCITRAL Rules”) and the applicable Spain-Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty (“Spain-Venezuela BIT” or “BIT”). The arbitration was conducted under the aegis of the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png ASA Bulletin Kluwer Law International

Case Note on the Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in Clorox v. Venezuela

ASA Bulletin , Volume 38 (4): 10 – Dec 1, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/case-note-on-the-decision-of-the-swiss-federal-tribunal-in-clorox-v-wPhmIbi03Z

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
ISSN
1010-9153
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Case Note on the Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in Clorox v. Venezuela ANDREEA NICA Investment – Investment treaty arbitration – Annulment proceedings – Switzerland – Abuse of process – UNCITRAL Arbitration Background of the Case In 1990, United States-based The Clorox International Company (“Clorox International”) established Clorox Venezuela in order to produce and distribute Clorox cleaning products in Venezuela. On 15 April 2011, Clorox International incorporated its subsidiary in Spain (“Clorox Spain”) and transferred 100% of its shares in Clorox Venezuela to Clorox Spain. Clorox Spain (the “Claimant”) argued that Venezuela adopted a number of regulatory measures which negatively affected its investment and forced Clorox Venezuela to cease operations. Noteworthy, the Claimant referred to the implementation of controlled prices on its cleaning products culminating with the governmental takeover of Clorox Venezuela’s assets, the adoption of protective labor laws, the failure to grant certain VAT reimbursements, and the failure to grant requests for foreign currency. On 18 May 2015, the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings under the 2010 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (“UNCITRAL Rules”) and the applicable Spain-Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty (“Spain-Venezuela BIT” or “BIT”). The arbitration was conducted under the aegis of the

Journal

ASA BulletinKluwer Law International

Published: Dec 1, 2020

There are no references for this article.