Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Lupaka v. Peru, Complaint, February 27, 2026

27 Feb 2026
Lupaka Gold Corp. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/46
Complaint
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Complaint
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Print reporter
Document Summary
Complaint
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Complaint filed by Lupaka Gold Corp. against the Republic of Peru in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff seeks to enforce a June 30, 2025 arbitral award rendered by an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal in favor of the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Factual and Legal Background

The underlying ICSID arbitration concerned the Parán Community's blockade and seizure of the Plaintiff's Invicta gold mine. The ICSID tribunal determined that the Parán Community acted as an organ of the State and exercised governmental authority. Consequently, the tribunal found Peru liable for breaches of the FTA's full protection and security, fair and equitable treatment, and expropriation provisions. The tribunal awarded the Plaintiff $40.4 million in damages, alongside pre- and post-award interest and costs.

Jurisdictional Basis and Relief Sought

In the present enforcement action, the Plaintiff asserts subject matter jurisdiction under the arbitral enforcement exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6), and the federal statute implementing the ICSID Convention, 22 U.S.C. § 1650a. The Plaintiff contends that the District Court's role is strictly limited to examining the award's authenticity and enforcing its pecuniary obligations, without reviewing the merits or the tribunal's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests the entry of a money judgment enforcing the ICSID award in its entirety, totaling approximately $68.5 million inclusive of accrued interest and costs.