In Emilio Maffezini v. Spain, a landmark ICSID case, the tribunal addressed the scope of most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the attribution of conduct of state-related entities. The dispute arose from an investment by an Argentine national, Emilio Agustín Maffezini, in a chemical production enterprise in Galicia, Spain. The claimant initiated arbitration in July 1997 under the Argentina-Spain BIT (1991), alleging that Spain, through the actions of a regional development entity, Sociedad para el Desarrollo Industrial de Galicia (SODIGA), had violated its treaty obligations. During the proceedings, Spain sought an order for security for costs, which the tribunal denied in a Procedural Order of October 28, 1999, holding that the request was premature and unrelated to the rights at issue in the dispute. A critical jurisdictional issue was Spain's objection that the claimant had failed to comply with a provision in the Argentina-Spain BIT requiring investors to submit disputes to local courts for 18 months before commencing international arbitration. The claimant countered that the MFN clause in the Argentina-Spain BIT allowed him to import the more favorable dispute resolution provisions of the Chile-Spain BIT, which contained no such local litigation requirement. In its seminal Decision on Jurisdiction of January 25, 2000, the tribunal agreed with the claimant. It held that an MFN clause could, in principle, extend to procedural matters like dispute settlement, provided there was no express exclusion and the imported provision did not fundamentally alter the nature of the consent to arbitrate given by the host state. This 'Maffezini clause' interpretation became a highly influential, though controversial, precedent in investment arbitration. On the merits, the claimant advanced several claims, contending that SODIGA's actions were attributable to Spain. These claims included allegations that SODIGA provided faulty advice on project costs, improperly pressured the claimant to proceed with the investment before an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was complete, and executed an unauthorized transfer of 30 million Spanish Pesetas from the claimant's personal account to the project company, EAMSA. Spain contested the claims, arguing that SODIGA was a private company whose acts were not attributable to the state, and that the claimant's losses resulted from his own poor business decisions. In its Award of November 13, 2000, the tribunal first confirmed its prima facie jurisdictional finding that SODIGA was a state entity whose conduct could be attributed to Spain, but only when it exercised governmental functions rather than purely commercial ones. Applying this functional test, the tribunal dismissed most of the claimant's contentions. It found that SODIGA's provision of feasibility studies and other business assistance was commercial in nature and did not engage Spain's responsibility for any alleged cost overruns. Similarly, the tribunal held that Spain was not liable for issues related to the EIA, as the state had simply insisted on compliance with applicable national and European environmental laws, a responsibility that ultimately rested with the investor. The tribunal, however, upheld one of the claimant's claims. It found that the unauthorized transfer of 30 million Pesetas was not a commercial act. Instead, it was an action taken by a SODIGA official in the exercise of SODIGA's public function to promote industrial development in Galicia. The tribunal concluded that this act, performed without the claimant's consent and lacking transparency, amounted to a breach of Spain's obligations under the BIT to provide fair and equitable treatment (FET) and to protect the investment. Consequently, the tribunal ordered Spain to compensate the claimant for the principal amount of the transfer plus compounded interest, totaling ESP 57,641,265.28. All other claims were dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own legal fees and costs.