This HTML version is machine-generated. Always consult the original document.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DECLARATION OF JAMES HOSKING

I, James Hosking, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 as follows:

1. I am an attorney and a partner with the law firm Chaffetz Lindsey LLP. I am counsel for Petitioner The AES Corporation (“AES” or “Petitioner") in the arbitration against the Argentine Republic (“Argentina”) underlying this recognition and enforcement proceeding (the “Arbitration”), as well as in the present proceeding. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge obtained during my representation of Petitioner in the Arbitration, my review of the record of the Arbitration, and the exhibits attached to this declaration.

2. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Petitioner's Petition to Recognize and Enforce an ICSID Arbitration Award. The Petition seeks entry of a judgment recognizing and enforcing the arbitration award dated May 30, 2025 (the “Award”) rendered in Petitioner's favor against Argentina pursuant to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Argentine Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment, U.S.-Arg., Nov. 14, 1991, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103-2 (1993) (“Argentina-U.S. BIT”).

[Page 2]

The Arbitration was conducted under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) and the Arbitration Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). The Arbitration was captioned AES Corporation v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17.

3. A true and correct copy of the Award, certified by the Acting Secretary General of ICSID, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A.¹ True and correct copies of the relevant articles of the ICSID Convention are attached to this Declaration as Exhibit C. A true and correct copy of the Argentina-U.S. BIT is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit D.

4. The Arbitration arose out of a series of measures undertaken by Argentina that arbitrarily and unlawfully undermined the legal framework governing electricity generation in Argentina.

5. In the early 1990s, the Argentine electricity sector was largely state-owned, and faced difficulties characterized by rolling blackouts, deteriorating equipment, deficits and insufficient funding. See Ex. A (Award), ¶ 48. Argentina therefore began a reform and privatization initiative with the aim of improving the efficiency of the sector, encouraging foreign investment and promoting competition. See Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 48, 50, 51-53.

6. The new regime, for instance, improved the tax treatment of foreign investors, removed waiting periods for the repatriation of foreign capital, eliminated requirements for governmental authorizations of investments, and guaranteed a minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors. See Ex. A (Award), ¶ 52. In addition, Argentina enacted its Electricity Law to

¹ The Award (including the Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Domingo Bello Janeiro) was rendered in both official English and Spanish originals. Attached as Exhibits A and B are the English version of the Award and Dissenting Opinion, respectively, as published by ICSID. ICSID published the Award with redactions to protect personal data. ↩

[Page 3]

introduce, among other things, (i) a competitive market in which prices would be set through supply and demand and (ii) a uniform tariff applicable to all electricity sold in the market. See Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 53, 62, 68, 70. Argentina also aggressively targeted foreign investors by advertising its new, privatized regime through international “road shows.” See Ex. A (Award), ¶ 263. In parallel, Argentina entered into several bilateral investment treaties, including the Argentina-U.S. BIT. See Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 48-49.

7. On the basis of these reforms, Petitioner invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Argentina's electricity generation and distribution sector. Petitioner’s subsidiaries, AES Argentina Generación S.A. and TermoAndes S.A., owned and operated a number of generation plants in Argentina, eight of which formed part of the underlying dispute. See Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 77, 79-80, 82, 84, 86, 89.

8. In 2001, Argentina experienced a severe economic crisis, which worsened through early 2002. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 95-97. Against this backdrop, and beginning in 2002, Argentina used that situation to adopt a series of measures that, according to Petitioner, were in breach of (inter alia) Articles II.2.a. and II.2.b. of the Argentina-U.S. BIT, which provide investments guarantees of fair and equitable treatment and non-impairment by arbitrary measures. Among other things, these measures:

a. Interfered with the remuneration scheme set out under the legal framework governing electricity generation by:

i. Capping or suppressing market prices for certain generation projects in violation of the uniform price guarantee. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 102-104, 226;

ii. Capping payments necessary to incentivize future investment. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 105, 228; and

[Page 4]

iii. Implementing a cost-plus remuneration scheme in place of the legally mandated competitive framework and in violation of the uniform price guarantee. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 117-119, 230, 341-344.

b. Coerced participants in the electricity generation market to invest further in generation capacity—i.e., by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars owed to those participants and conditioning payment of that debt on Petitioner and its subsidiaries building new electricity generation plants. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 108-116 225, 229, 322, 329.²

9. Those measures breached Argentina's treaty obligations. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 340, 351, 395, 399, 402.

10. Accordingly, on November 5, 2002, Petitioner filed an ICSID request for arbitration against Argentina. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 1, 6.

11. On June 3, 2003, the Tribunal was constituted. The Tribunal initially was composed of the President, Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, a national of France who was appointed by agreement of the parties; Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, a national of Germany, who was appointed by Petitioner; and Professor Domingo Bello Janeiro, a national of the Kingdom of Spain, who was appointed by Argentina. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 9-10.

12. On October 23-24, 2004, the Tribunal held a hearing on jurisdiction. The Tribunal issued its unanimous Decision on Jurisdiction on April 26, 2005, ruling in favor of Petitioner. Ex.

² The details of the underlying dispute are set out more fully in paragraphs 46 to 53 and 93 to 138 of the Award attached as Exhibit A to this declaration. ↩

[Page 5]

A (Award), ¶¶ 18, 20. A true and correct copy of the Decision on Jurisdiction is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit E.³

13. From January 23, 2006 to December 11, 2018, the parties agreed to suspend proceedings while they attempted to reach a negotiated settlement. Ex. A (Award), ¶ 22. That attempt failed, and on January 11, 2019, Petitioner requested that the Arbitration resume. Ex. A (Award), ¶ 138. On January 27 and 28, 2019, Mr. Dupuy and Professor Böckstiegel resigned from the Tribunal. Ex. A (Award), ¶ 23.

14. On December 12, 2019, the Tribunal was re-constituted and the proceedings resumed. Ex. A (Award), ¶ 28. The Tribunal was composed of the President, Mr. Ricardo Ramirez Hernandez, a national of Mexico who was appointed by agreement of the parties; Mr. Stephen L. Drymer, a national of Canada who was appointed by Petitioner; and Professor Domingo Bello Janeiro. Id.

15. In the Arbitration, Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that Argentina had breached Article II.2 of the Argentina-U.S. BIT, which requires Argentina to provide fair and equitable treatment to U.S. investments (Article II.2.a) and prohibits Argentina from impairing U.S. investments through arbitrary or discriminatory measures (Article II.2.b). Petitioner alleged that Argentina breached these obligations by arbitrarily dismantling the central legal and economic underpinnings of the regulatory framework governing electricity generation in Argentina. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 235-240, 374-380. Petitioner sought damages for Argentina’s breaches of the Argentina-U.S. BIT, as well as interest and legal fees and costs. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 477, 550, 585.

³ The Decision on Jurisdiction was rendered in both official English and Spanish originals. Attached as Exhibit E is the English version. ↩

[Page 6]

16. The proceedings were extensive and both parties participated fully. Argentina contested the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the admissibility and merits of the dispute, and Petitioner’s claim for damages. Petitioner likewise participated fully at all stages of the Arbitration, making written submissions on jurisdiction, admissibility, the merits, and damages. In total, the Arbitration involved written submissions of more than a thousand pages over multiple rounds of pre-hearing briefing, including three rounds of memorial-style pleadings. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 13, 17, 21, 30, 43-44. The Tribunal held an in-person case management conference in Washington, D.C. on July 8, 2003, followed by an in-person hearing in Paris, France on October 23-24, 2004 (on jurisdiction) and an in-person hearing in Washington D.C., from February 6 through 16, 2023 (on the merits and damages). Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 18, 40. The hearing on jurisdiction involved oral submissions and Tribunal questions. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 18-19. The hearing on the merits involved oral submissions, Tribunal questions, and the examination of ten fact witnesses and two expert witnesses. Ex. A (Award), ¶¶ 40-42. After the conclusion of the hearing on the merits and damages, both parties submitted post-hearing briefs. Ex. A (Award), ¶ 43.

17. On May 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued its 253-page Award, unanimously finding that Argentina had breached Articles II.2.a. and II.2.b. of the Argentina-U.S. BIT⁴ by denying Petitioner fair and equitable treatment and subjecting its investment to arbitrary and discriminatory measures, and awarding Petitioner damages along with interest and costs. See Ex. A (Award), ¶ 602.

18. Specifically, the Tribunal unanimously awarded Petitioner damages in the amount of $715,900,000, and a Tribunal majority awarded Petitioner reimbursement of its legal fees in the

⁴ Although all members of the Tribunal agreed that Argentina had breached the Argentina-U.S. BIT, the arbitrator appointed by Argentina issued a partial dissent regarding the apportionment of costs. See Ex. B (Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Domingo Bello Janeiro). ↩

[Page 7]

amount of $15,807,955.30 and all costs of the arbitration, in the amount of $1,273,176.52. Ex. A (Award), at ¶¶ 602(ix)-(x). The full current amount of the Award is therefore US$824,397,132.86 including interest.

19. On June 9, 2025, Petitioner demanded Argentina’s compliance with the Award and payment of the amounts owing under the Award. A true and correct copy of Petitioner’s letter, with financial account information redacted, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit F.

20. To date, Argentina has not moved to annul the Award, nor has it made any payment under the Award.

21. No prior application for this or similar relief has been made to this District Court.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.