Download the PDF
Gustavo Minervini
1. Introduction On 19 August 2024, an ICSID-administered tribunal established under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules rendered a final award in the dispute Alicia Grace v. Mexico. The dispute arose from a series of contracts (‘Oro Negro Contracts’) between Petróleos Mexicanos (‘Pemex’), the Mexican State-owned oil enterprise, and Perforadora Oro Negro (‘Perforadora’), a corporation operating in the lease of oil platforms constituted under the law of Mexico as a subsidiary of Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro (‘Integradora’), the holding company. In September 2017, on account of the insolvency proceedings filed before Mexican courts by Integradora and its subsidiaries (collectively known as ‘Oro Negro’), Pemex terminated the Oro Negro Contracts, immediately returning the five oil platforms that were in lease. Later on, criminal investigations and tax controls were launched in Mexico against Integradora, Perforadora and various physical persons related to them. In the meanwhile, following the default of Oro Negro, some of the bondholders who had massively financed the operations of the group sought to enforce their credit guarantees, attaching the platforms: this was possible, the Claimants contended, due to the collusion of Mexican authorities, which were allegedly interested to «drive Integradora out of business and […] award the Oro Negro Contracts to the Bondholders». According to the Claimants, such course of action by Mexico resulted in an unlawful expropriation, a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard, as well as a violation of the full protection and security standard under the North American Free Trade Agreement (‘NAFTA’). Following the jurisdictional objections raised by the Respondent State, the tribunal had first to decide on whether, in accordance with the relevant treaty, the Claimants: i) qualified as nationals of another State party and held a covered investment; and ii) had ius standi – i.e., the entitlement9 – to bring their claims under either Article 1116 or Article 1117 of the NAFTA. As for the first question, it was answered in the affirmative, except for Mr. WilliamsonNasi and Mr. Can edo White, who failed to prove that their dominant and effective nationality was that of the United States, thus being considered Mexican citizens for the purposes of the proceedings. With regard to the second issue, the tribunal concluded that the Integradora shareholders lacked the required legal standing to commence proceedings against Mexico. In light of the fore
