Asia international dispute resolution webinar series
International dispute resolution in Africa
Presentation by Brian King and Elliot Friedman Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
Increasing Asian investment in Africa
1
Types of Investments Asian Investments in Africa by sector, 2011 – 2013
2
Examples of Recent Asian Investments in Africa Wilmar International Ltd. (Singapore) acquires 27.5% stake in Compagnie Sucriere Marocaine De Raffinage SA (Morocco) • US$279 million (April 2013)
Korea Investment Corp. (Korea) acquires IHS Holdings Ltd. (Nigeria) • US$242 million (July 2013)
China Merchants Holdings (International) Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong) acquires 23.5% stake in Port de Djibouti S.A. (Djibouti) • US$185 million (February 2013)
3
Recent Asian Investments in the African Oil and Gas Sector China National Offshore Oil Corp. acquires stake in Tullow Oil (Uganda) •
US$2.9 billion (2011-12)
Sinopec (China) acquires 33% stake in Apache Corp.’s operations in Egypt •
US$3.1 billion (2013)
Temasek (Singapore) acquires 20% stake in LNG block in Tanzania •
Approx US$1.3 billion (2013)
ONGC Videsh Ltd. (India) acquires 10% stake in Rovuma Offshore Area 1 Block (Mozambique) •
US$2.4 billion (2013)
Energi Mega Persada Tbk (Indonesia) acquires 25% stake in Buzi Hydrocarbons Pte. Ltd. (Mozambique) •
US$175 million provisional price (2013)
4
The Case for Investment in Africa Steady and projected growth • International Monetary Fund estimates Sub-Saharan Africa alone will grow by nearly 6 percent this year • IMF estimates that Africa will have world’s fastest-growing economies during the next five years • Trade between Africa and the rest of the globe increased by roughly 200 percent between 2000 and 2011 • Africa's GDP is expected to reach US$2.6 trillion by 2020
5
Overall economic growth
6
Economic Growth, cont.
7
Investment risks • Political instability
• Civil unrest
• Unfair taxation measures
• Discriminatory judicial or administrative system
• Resource nationalism
2013 Political Risk Assessment © Maplecroft, 2013 8
Risk mitigation: international arbitration 1. Investment treaties 2. Foreign investment laws 3. International commercial arbitration
9
1. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) Singapore
Singapore – Xanadu BIT
Xanadu (host state)
(home state)
Investor has a right to bring an arbitration against the state for violation of the BIT
Singapore investor in Xanadu (natural person or company)
10
Protections provided by investment treaties Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) provide substantive protections against government actions • Fair and equitable treatment • Full protection and security • No expropriation without compensation • “Most favored nation” and “national” treatment • Free repatriation of investment and returns • No arbitrary or discriminatory treatment • “Umbrella” clause • Substantive protections reach executive, legislative and judicial actions
Enforcement mechanism: investor-state arbitration Key criteria to qualify for BIT protection • Qualifying “investor”: nationality-based • Qualifying “investment”: broadly defined 11
Existing investment treaties Many Asian nations have no, or only a few, bilateral investment treaties with African countries: • Japan has only one: Egypt • Malaysia has only four: Morocco, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and Algeria • The Philippines has none
Does that leave investors unprotected? Not necessarily.
12
Structuring investments in Africa Investors can structure their investments in Africa
Netherlands-Nigeria Investment-Protection Treaty
Investment in Nigeria
Singaporean company
Dutch B.V. (special purpose vehicle)
13
Careful due diligence needed Not all investment treaties provide the same level of protection: • Some treaties have more robust substantive protections than others • Some treaties limit the ability of investors to arbitrate against a State • Some treaties require substantial business activities in state of incorporation
But MFN clauses may expand structuring options
14
African countries that have BITs providing for investor-state arbitration with the UK, the Netherlands, and France Note: Not all the BITs represented here necessarily offer the full suite of investor protections or provide for investor-state arbitration. When structuring an investment, be sure to check the terms of the relevant BIT and the presence of an MFN clause.
UNITED KINGDOM NETHERLANDS
FRANCE
TUNISIA MOROCCO ALGERIA ALGERIA
LIBYA LIBYA
EGYPT
SENEGAL MALI MALI
CAPE VERDE
NIGER
SUDAN
GAMBIA NIGERIA NIGERIA BURKINA FASO GUINEA
SOUTH SUDAN
ETHIOPIA ETHIOPIA ETHIOPIA
CAMEROON LIBERIA GHANA CÔTE D’IVOIRE
UGANDA KENYA
BENIN CONGO
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
BURUNDI TANZANIA MALAWI
MADAGASCAR
NAMIBIA
MAURITIUS SWAZILAND SOUTH SOUTH AFRICA AFRICA
Source: UNCTAD ZIMBABWE
LESOTHO
Structuring investments – a well-known Japanese example Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic (2006) • Japanese company, Nomura, formed Dutch subsidiary, Saluka, to invest in Czech Republic • Saluka initiated arbitration against the Czech Republic under the NetherlandsCzech Republic BIT • Saluka treated as a Dutch investor despite the fact that its parent was Japanese • Result: Award in favor of investor, followed by a substantial settlement
16
Structuring investments – when? Structuring (or restructuring) should take place before a dispute arises • Mobil Corporation v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27 (2010) - After initial investment, and onset of aspects of dispute with Venezuela, Mobil restructured corporate chain to include Dutch entity and initiated arbitration based on Netherlands-Venezuela BIT - Tribunal extended BIT protection to claims arising after the restructuring, but not to disputes that had ripened prior to the restructuring • Phoenix Action Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5 (2009) - Investment made for the purpose of gaining the protection of a treaty - Tribunal dismissed claim as “one of the most egregious cases of ‘treatyshopping’ that the investment arbitration community has seen in recent history”
17
Some African examples • The Ivory Coast - Cocoa growing and exporting is one of the largest industries in the Ivory Coast. However, cocoa exporters had not structured their investments through the only BIT with the country that provided for investor-state arbitration: the UK - Laurent Gbagbo threatened the expropriation of cocoa in his country, with international companies forced to consider their options thereafter - Absent the French intervention, there may have been losses to foreign investors who had not undertaken BIT structuring
• Madagascar – Daewoo Land Controversy - South Korean company Daewoo had a long-term lease for 1.3 million hectares of farmland in Madagascar - Catalyst leading to rebellion in which president was ousted by radio DJ Andry Rajoelina, who terminated the deal - Lesson: foreign investment may be controversial in any country. Structuring can provide protection against political risks
18
Institutions and arbitral rules for investment arbitrations ICSID • Autonomous international institution providing facilities and administrative support for international arbitral proceedings • Created by treaty on initiative of World Bank in 1966 • Over 140 members of ICSID Convention (also known as “Washington Convention”) • Handles majority of investor-state arbitrations • Has its own jurisdictional requirements and institutional rules
ICSID Additional Facility • May be used where one party is a member of the ICSID Convention (or a national of an ICSID Member state) and other party is not
UNCITRAL Rules (for ad hoc arbitration) • Some institutions (e.g., Permanent Court of Arbitration) may administer UNCITRAL arbitrations
ICC Arbitration 19
Benefits of ICSID arbitration Neutral and self-contained international system • In principal, no exposure of arbitral process to national courts
The “World Bank factor” • Encourages compliance with awards and possibly settlement
Increasing transparency • But still a degree of confidentiality
Clear and reasonable cost schedules
20
African signatories to the ICSID Convention TUNISIA 1965 1966
MOROCCO 1965 1967 ALGERIA 1995 1996 SENEGAL 1966 1967 CAPE VERDE 2010 2011 GAMBIA 1974 1975 GUINEABISSAU 1991 GUINEA 1968 1968
MAURITANIA 1965 1966
MALI 1976 1978
EGYPT 1972 1972
NIGER 1965 1966
CHAD 1966 1966
SUDAN 1967 1973
NIGERIA SOUTH SUDAN 1965 2012 ETHIOPIA CÔTE CENTRAL AFRICAN 1966 2012 1965 D’IVOIRE 1965 REPUBLIC CAMEROON LIBERIA 1966 1965 1965 1965 BENIN SOMALIA 1967 1966 1970 UGANDA KENYA 1965 1965 CONGO DEMOCRATIC 1966 1968 1966 1966 GABON 1965 REPUBLIC OF 1966 1967 RWANDA 1965 1966 THE CONGO 1978 1966 BURKINA FASO BURUNDI 1979 1968 1965 1967 TANZANIA 1970 SEYCHELLES 1966 1969 1992 TOGO 1978 1992 1966 1978 GHANA COMOROS 1967 1965 1978 1966 MALAWI 1978 ZAMBIA 1966 1970 1966 1970 ZIMBABWE MOZAMBIQUE MADAGASCAR MAURITIUS 1995 1991 NAMIBIA 1969 1995 1994 1966 1998 1969 BOTSWANA 1966 1970 1970
Date of signature | Date of entry into force
SWAZILAND 1970 LESOTHO 1971 1968 1969
21
ICSID Arbitrations against African states 61% of African state signatories have been involved in ICSID proceedings ICSID Arbitrations Against African States By Sector Industrial Activities
7
15
Mining
7
Agriculture/ Forestry 10
Oil and Gas 14 Construction/ Operation Hospitality Power Generation
19
12 General Commercial 11
Source: Karel Daele, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 30 May 2012 22
ICSID arbitrations against African states In the 56 investment arbitrations against African states that had concluded at the time of this study (20 were still pending), the results have been as follows:
Settled prior to decision 13
13 Settled after a decision
Claims Dismissed
8
Claims Upheld
15
Source: Karel Daele, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 30 May 2012 23
Freshfields in investor-state arbitration in Africa Tullow Uganda v. Uganda (2013) • Dispute involves petroleum exploration and production
Orascom v. Algeria (2012) • Dispute involves a multibillion dollar telecommunications investment
Ampal-American Israel Corporation v. Egypt (2012) • Dispute involves Egypt’s supply of gas to Israel
Equatorial Guinea v. CMS (2011) • Dispute, which is in ICSID conciliation proceedings, involves a capital gains tax on a hydrocarbons investment
Piero Foresti v. South Africa (2010) • Dispute involved South Africa’s “black empowerment” legislation
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania (2008) • Dispute involved operation of water and sewerage services in Dar-es-Salaam
World Duty Free Company Ltd. v. Kenya (2006) • Dispute involved a duty-free enterprise
24
2. Foreign investment laws A Bilateral Investment Treaty is not the only way to gain access to foreign investment protections and international arbitration •
Many states have Foreign Investment Laws providing such protections
•
Foreign Investment Laws may provide: -
Substantive protections for foreign investment (e.g., no expropriation, fair treatment)
-
An international arbitration right in the event of disputes
Caveats: • •
Some laws have qualifying criteria that must be met A State may change its foreign investment law unilaterally or abolish it altogether
Bottom line: proper due diligence essential
25
Examples of foreign investment laws Tanzania • Arbitration upon agreement of the parties • Free transferability of profits, dividends, remittances, payments, etc. • No nationalization or expropriation without due process and compensation
Mozambique • Arbitration upon agreement of the parties • Does not apply to businesses conducting prospecting, mining-, gas- or petroleum-related operations • But separate mining laws provide treaty-type protections • National treatment; protection of property rights 26
3. International commercial arbitration Contract-based Designated in contract: dispute resolution clause A contract is only as strong as its dispute resolution clause • Enables enforcement of rights and obligations under the contract • A strong enforcement mechanism helps avoid disputes An arbitration clause is only as good as its drafting • Must be comprehensive and clear • Proper drafting reduces risk of disputes over the form and location of dispute resolution (saving costs and time)
27
Enforcement under the New York Convention Arbitral awards are enforceable under the New York Convention • Enforceable in the courts of the 146 countries that have adopted the Convention • Reciprocity reservation means crucial to seat arbitration in a New York Convention state
Very circumscribed defenses to recognition and enforcement • Errors of fact or law are not grounds for refusing enforcement • Normally, a clear violation of due process is needed • Caveat: the “public policy” exception
28
African signatories to the New York Convention TUNISIA 1967
MOROCCO 1959 ALGERIA 1989
SENEGAL 1995
MAURITANIA 2007
MALI 1994
CÔTE D’IVOIRE LIBERIA 1991 2005
GUINEA 1991
EGYPT 1959
NIGER 1965
DJIBOUTI 1977
NIGERIA 1970
BENIN 1974
CENTRAL AFRICAN CAMEROON REPUBLIC 1963 1988 GABON 2007
BURKINA FASO 1987
UGANDA KENYA 1992 1989 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO 2013
RWANDA 2009
TANZANIA 1965
GHANA 1968 ZAMBIA 2002 ZIMBABWE MOZAMBIQUE 1998 1994 BOTSWANA 1972
Date of Entry into Force
MADAGASCAR 1962
MAURITIUS 1996
SOUTH AFRICA LESOTHO 1976 1989
29
Drafting effective arbitration clauses Institutional arbitration: strongly recommended • Will incur costs of institution but institutional supervision is valuable • Choice of institution: choose a major international institution (ICC, LCIA, SCC, ICDR, ICSID) unless there is a good reason not to do so
Ad hoc arbitration with UNCITRAL Rules: preferable to pure ad hoc arbitration • Provides a set of time-tested rules with United Nations imprimatur • Must remember to specify Appointing Authority
Pure ad hoc arbitration: permits tailor-made arbitration procedure • But heavy drafting burden on parties • Risks ending up in national court in event of non-cooperation or gaps
30
Fora for Asian-African arbitration Seat of arbitration: should be specified in contract • Often-used “neutral” seats: London, Paris, Geneva, Stockholm, Singapore, Sydney • Popular seats in Africa: not yet • Choice of seat very important: determines procedural law applicable to the arbitration
Some arbitral institution options: • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration seated in arbitrationfriendly jurisdiction • Singapore International Arbitration Centre • Dubai International Arbitration Center • Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration • Kuala Lumpur Regional Center for Arbitration
31
Freshfields in commercial arbitration in Africa • Advising a major international oil company in a multi-billion dollar dispute with Nigeria; • Advised the shareholders of an African telecoms company in an ICC arbitration in Brussels arising out of a joint venture agreement creating the largest mobile phone operator in the country; • Advised an international oil company in a Geneva arbitration relating to a cashcall dispute arising under a farm-out agreement entered into with a North African State oil company; • Represented Econet Wireless in a dispute related to the sale of a controlling stake in a Nigerian mobile telecommunications company to Zain/Celtel Nigeria; • Advising the Tanzanian road agency TANROADS in three construction arbitrations; and • Advised in relation to a dispute involving a major hydro-power project in Malawi
32
Putting it all together Thorough due diligence exercise prior to investing is critical • Investment treaty structuring • Understand relevant foreign investment laws • Strong and sensible dispute resolution clause • Tax structuring • Form of investment (joint venture or other) • Political risk insurance • Potential corruption issues
“For tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today.” – African proverb 33
Questions? Brian King New York
Elliot Friedman New York
T +1 212 277 4020 E brian.king@ freshfields.com
T +1 212 230 4666 E elliot.friedman@ freshfields.com
Kazuki Okada Tokyo
Akiko Yamakawa Tokyo
T +81 3 3584 8502 E kazuki.okada@ freshfields.com
T +81 3 3584 3139 E akiko.yamakawa@ freshfields.com
Nicholas Lingard Tokyo/Singapore T +81 3 3584 8348 T +65 6908 0796 E nicholas.lingard@ freshfields.com
34
Some of our arbitration awards and rankings “They have a massive arbitration practice.” – Chambers Global 2014
Global Arbitration Review Top of GAR 30 for 7 consecutive years 2014
Who's Who Legal Awards 2014 Global Arbitration Firm of the Year
Chambers Global Band 1 International Arbitration 2014
Chambers USA Arbitration Firm of the Year 2014
35
This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. © Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP 2015
36