Procedural Context and Purpose

This Post-Hearing Brief is submitted by the Claimant, Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd, following the hearing on quantum in its UNCITRAL arbitration against the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The submission aims to synthesize the evidentiary record supporting the Claimant's valuation of its expropriated assets and to respond to two specific questions posed by the Tribunal concerning interest rates and the tax treatment of the award.

Key Arguments on Quantum

The Claimant argues that the preponderance of evidence supports the valuations prepared by its experts (Compass Lexecon and RPA) over the lower valuations advanced by the Respondent's experts (Quadrant and Econ One). The central disputes addressed concern the fair market value of the Colquiri Mine, the Vinto Tin Smelter, an Antimony Smelter, and associated assets.

For the Colquiri Mine, the Claimant contends that its valuation must be based on the "Triennial Plan," an expansion project it asserts was already being implemented at the time of the taking. This is contrasted with the Respondent's reliance on a less ambitious "March 2012 Plan." The Claimant also presents extensive evidence regarding the historical and future likelihood of mineral reserve replenishment to support its long-term production forecasts. Furthermore, the brief argues for a substantial valuation for the associated Tailings Plant, citing feasibility studies and admissions from the Respondent's own expert that the project had "some value," contrary to the zero-value position in their reports.

Responses to Tribunal Questions and Relief Sought

In response to the Tribunal's questions, the Claimant advocates for the application of a fixed interest rate for pre- and post-award damages, based on the Bolivian Central Bank rate at the time of the respective valuation dates. It argues this approach aligns with international arbitral practice, including prior awards against Bolivia, and reflects commercial reality. The Claimant also requests that the Tribunal declare the final award to be "net of all Bolivian taxes." It reasons that since its damages models have already deducted all applicable taxes, any further taxation by the Respondent would constitute double taxation and undermine the principle of full reparation.

The Claimant requests an award of US$436.9 million in damages, plus US$432.1 million in pre-award interest, and a declaration that the award is net of taxes or, alternatively, an order for Bolivia to gross-up any payment to cover subsequent taxes.