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

Cube Infrastructure and others v. Spain, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, August 14, 2025

14 Aug 2025
Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/20
View case details
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
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
Loren L. AliKhan
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
Entities
Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV, Spain
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This Order, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, constitutes the final judgment in the proceedings between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Kingdom of Spain. The procedural posture involves the Court's review of Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya’s Report and Recommendation alongside several dispositive motions filed by the respective parties.

In its operative directions, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in full, relying on the reasoning set forth in its concurrently issued Memorandum Opinion. Consequently, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Furthermore, while the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, it granted the Plaintiffs’ alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court explicitly designated this Order as a final judgment within the meaning of Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.