Jurisdiction

This Award from an ICSID Tribunal constituted under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resolves jurisdictional objections and the merits of claims brought by Espíritu Santo Holdings, LP and L1bre Holding, LLC against the United Mexican States. The Tribunal dismissed all of Respondent’s jurisdictional objections, affirming its competence to hear the claims. Respondent challenged jurisdiction on several grounds, including the Claimants' nationality, an alleged waiver of treaty rights, the legality of the investment, and the standing of one of the claimants. The Tribunal rejected the argument to pierce the corporate veil, holding that NAFTA’s plain text establishes nationality based on the place of incorporation, not the nationality of the ultimate owners. It also found that a Calvo-style clause in the investment vehicle's articles of incorporation constituted a waiver of diplomatic protection, not a clear and express waiver of the investor's direct right to arbitration. Finally, despite finding evidence of serious procedural irregularities in the granting of the underlying concession, the Tribunal concluded that Respondent’s acquiescence and participation in those acts estopped it from invoking illegality to defeat jurisdiction.

Merits and Decision

On the merits, the Tribunal, by a majority, dismissed all of Claimants' claims for breach of NAFTA Articles 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment), 1110 (Expropriation), and 1102 (National Treatment). The claims centered on the alleged unlawful suspension of a concession for a digital taximeter and ride-hailing system (the “L1bre System”) and the subsequent launch of a competing state-owned application (“Mi Taxi”). The Tribunal was not persuaded by the evidence that Respondent had suspended the concession, citing significant inconsistencies in the suspension letters proffered by Claimants and contradictory contemporary conduct by their representatives. Critically, the Tribunal found that Claimants failed to prove their L1bre System was technologically ready for full implementation in 2018. Expert evidence demonstrated that the system lacked a functional and tested backend server, a fatal flaw for a project of its intended scale. Consequently, the Tribunal attributed the failure of the investment to Claimants' own inability to deliver a viable project, rather than to any act of the State. The launch of Mi Taxi was also found not to constitute a breach, as Claimants held no right of exclusivity and the state-owned app was functionally different and not mandatory for taxi drivers.

The Tribunal ordered each party to bear its own legal fees and expenses. Based on the outcome, where Claimants succeeded on jurisdiction but failed entirely on the merits and on several procedural applications, the Tribunal allocated 60% of the arbitration costs to the Claimants and 40% to the Respondent. The operative part of the Award orders Claimants to pay Respondent USD 124,778.68, representing the difference in their respective contributions to the costs of the arbitration.