The case of the day is Micula v. Government of Romania (D.D.C. 2015). Viorel Micula alleged that he had made investments in Romania in reliance on certain incentives offered by the Romanian government. He claimed that Romania later revoked the incentives, causing him to suffer a loss, and that Romania had acted in violation of its bilateral investment treaty with Sweden. Micula demanded an ICSID arbitration, which resulted in an award in his favor (and in favor of several other investors) of more than $116 million.
Romania asked ICSID to annul the award, and at Romania’s request, ICSID’s secretary-general granted an initial stay of enforcement of the award. Shortly thereafter, Micula brought a petition in Washington under 22 U.S.C. § 1605a seeking ex parte confirmation of the award. (Ex parte confirmation is a well-established procedure in the SDNY; I discussed the issue in a post on Mobil Cerro Negro v. Venezuela). ICSID later constituted an ad hoc committee to consider whether the award should be stayed pending a decision on annulment. The committee agreed to a further stay, but only if Romania gave a written assurance that it would pay the award in full if annulment were denied. Romania failed to give the written assurance, and the committee revoked the initial stay.