Procedural Posture and Core Arguments

This document is the Post-Hearing Brief on Quantum submitted by the Respondent, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, following the hearing on quantum held from 28 March to 1 April 2021. The brief is presented without prejudice to Bolivia's jurisdictional objections and merits defenses. Bolivia's central contention is that the Claimant's (Glencore's) valuation of the expropriated assets—the Colquiri Mine, the Vinto Smelter, the Antimony Smelter, and a tin stock—is speculative, grossly inflated, and reliant on unrealistic projections that contradict the assets' historical performance, documented operational limitations, and established industry valuation standards.

Valuation of the Colquiri Mine

Bolivia argues that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Colquiri Mine lease must be assessed ex ante as of 19 June 2012. It contends that the Claimant's valuation is fundamentally flawed as it is premised on a hypothetical, misinformed buyer who would accept an unapproved and aspirational 'Triennial Plan' at face value. In contrast, Bolivia asserts that a prudent, well-informed buyer would have based its valuation on the mine's historical performance, known mineral reserves and resources, and operational bottlenecks. Bolivia's position is that Claimant's expert, RPA, improperly fails to apply industry-standard discounts for geological uncertainty and mining recovery. Furthermore, Bolivia challenges the Claimant's projections for production rates, head grades, and metallurgical recovery as technically unfeasible and unsupported, and argues that the Claimant severely underestimates the required capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) expenditures.

Valuation of the Vinto and Antimony Smelters

Regarding the Vinto Smelter, Bolivia challenges the Claimant's projected 22% increase in production as unsubstantiated and impossible given the facility's condition and the absence of any planned or executed capital investment. Bolivia maintains that the valuation should be based on the smelter's actual performance during 2005-2006, not on speculative future output. It also refutes the Claimant's claims of achieving economies of scale and argues that the Claimant's model significantly understates remediation and closure costs.

For the non-operating Antimony Smelter, Bolivia argues its commercial value is nil or negative due to the substantial, unaccounted-for costs of dismantling and remediation. It asserts the valuation date should be 30 April 2010, immediately before its reversion to the State. Bolivia critiques the Claimant's valuation as methodologically flawed for ignoring these liabilities.

Discount Rate, Interest, and Taxes

Bolivia further argues that the discount rates used by the Claimant's experts are unrealistically low, as they fail to adequately account for country-specific business risks and the illiquidity of the assets. On the issue of pre-award interest, Bolivia contends that any such award must be compensatory, not punitive. It therefore advocates for a risk-free rate and the application of simple, not compounded, interest, arguing that the Claimant bore no post-reversion business risk. Finally, Bolivia asserts that any compensation awarded should not be exempt from taxation, as taxation is an essential attribute of sovereignty and the Claimant's request for such an exemption is speculative and premature.

This document is a cost certificate submitted by the Respondent, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in PCA Case No. 2016-39/AA641. Filed pursuant to the Tribunal's directives, the submission quantifies the costs Bolivia incurred throughout the arbitration and requests specific relief from the Tribunal.

Bolivia formally requests that the Tribunal order the Claimant to reimburse its total fees, costs, and expenses, which amount to US$ 7,882,794.49. Additionally, Bolivia seeks an order for interest to accrue at a normal commercial rate on this amount from the date the costs were incurred until the date of full payment. The submission includes a detailed appendix, certified by counsel, which itemizes the total amount into categories including legal fees, expert fees, administrative costs paid to the PCA, and other miscellaneous expenses.

Procedural Context and Core Submission

This document is the Claimant's Post-Hearing Reply in a PCA-administered arbitration against the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Submitted following the hearing on the merits and quantum, it serves to rebut arguments made in the Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief. The Claimant's central thesis is that its valuation of the expropriated assets is supported by the preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing, including what it characterizes as numerous concessions made by the Respondent's own expert and fact witnesses during cross-examination.

Valuation of Expropriated Assets

The submission dedicates significant analysis to the valuation of the Colquiri Mine. The Claimant contends that, contrary to Bolivia's position, the evidence demonstrates the mine was undergoing expansion pursuant to an approved "Triennial Plan" at the time of the taking, with budgeted capital expenditures in place. It further argues that the mine had a long history of replenishing its mineral reserves and would likely have continued to do so, refuting Bolivia's valuation which assumes no replenishment. The Claimant attacks the Respondent's expert's proposed discounts to the certified reserves and resources as being based on subjective "feelings" rather than objective evidence or standard industry practice.

The Reply also addresses the valuation of the Vinto Tin Smelter and the Tailings Plant. The Claimant defends its US$53 million valuation for Vinto, contrasting it with Bolivia's US$17 million figure, by pointing to the asset's historical profitability. It argues that Bolivia's assertion of a "zero value" for the Tailings Plant is contradicted by expert testimony confirming the project was technically feasible and that development work had commenced prior to the expropriation.

Discount Rates and Interest

A key area of dispute addressed is the appropriate discount rate for the DCF analysis. The Claimant defends its proposed rates (12.3% for Colquiri and 15.7% for Vinto) as being consistent with market benchmarks and prior arbitral awards involving Bolivia. It strongly critiques the Respondent's much higher proposed rates (22.1% and 28.5%), arguing they are based on a flawed and unorthodox methodology. Specifically, the Claimant objects to the Respondent's calculation of the country risk premium, which it argues lacks precedential support, and the application of an additional "illiquidity/size" premium, which it contends is inappropriate for the valuation of a controlling stake in an emerging market asset.

The Claimant reiterates its entitlement to compound interest at the rates published by Bolivia's Central Bank, arguing this reflects the "normal commercial rate" required by the applicable bilateral investment treaty. It cites the tribunals' reasoning in *Rurelec v. Bolivia* and *South American Silver v. Bolivia* as support for its interpretation and for rejecting Bolivia's proposal of a risk-free rate.

Tax Treatment and Final Relief

Finally, the Claimant argues for an award to be issued net of all applicable existing Bolivian taxes. It asserts that this is necessary to protect the finality and efficacy of the award and to ensure full reparation under international law, as any subsequent taxation by the Respondent would diminish the compensation to which it is entitled. The document concludes by referring the Tribunal to its request for relief as detailed in its Post-Hearing Brief.