Arbitral Digest

Matter

ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1)

Case no.
ARB(AF)/00/1
Seat
United States
Applicable rules
ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules
  1. 11 July 2001United States

    11 July 2001United States

    Procedural Order No. 2 Concerning the Place of Arbitration

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal designated Washington, D.C. as the place of arbitration. It permitted the Tribunal to meet in Montreal or elsewhere, when necessary or appropriate to hear particular witnesses and facilitate the presentation of evidence, upon request and agreement of both parties.

    Supporting details

    10 authorities · 5 participants
    ADF Group Inc.
    United States of America
    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
    Arbitrator
    Carolyn B. Lamm

    Authorities cited

    10
    • North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
      treaty
    • Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention)
      treaty
    • United States Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C.)
      statute
    • United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C.)
      statute
    • United States Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. 1491(a))
      statute
    • United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation (Case No. 2001BCSC664)
      case law
    • Quintette Coal Ltd. v. Nippon Steel Corporation ([1991] 1 W.W.R. 219 (B.C.C.A.))
      case law
    • Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. (473 U.S. 614 (1985))
      case law
    • Ethyl Corporation v. Government of Canada (38 International Legal Materials 700 (1999))
      case law
    • Methanex Corporation v. United States of America (Decision of 7 September 2000)
      case law

    1 year, 5 months and 29 days later · 547 days

  2. 9 January 2003United States

    9 January 2003United States

    Award

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

    Decision summary
    The Tribunal denied ADF's claims under NAFTA Articles 1102, 1103, 1106, and 1105(1). It dismissed without prejudice as inadmissible the claims concerning construction projects other than the Springfield Interchange Project. The costs of the proceeding, including tribunal fees, expenses, and Secretariat charges, were to be shared equally, with each party bearing its own expenses.

    Supporting details

    10 authorities · 22 participants
    ADF Group Inc.
    Representative
    Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (For: ADF Group Inc.)
    Representative
    Peter E. Kirby (For: ADF Group Inc.)
    Representative
    Rene Cadieux (For: ADF Group Inc.)
    Representative
    Stacey Pinchuk (For: ADF Group Inc.)
    Representative
    Diane Bertrand (For: ADF Group Inc.)
    Representative
    Pierre Labelle (For: ADF Group Inc.)
    United States of America
    Representative
    Office of the Legal Adviser of the United States Department of State (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    James H. Thessin (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    Ronald J. Bettauer (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    Mark A. Clodfelter (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    Barton Legum (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    Andrea J. Menaker (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    Laura A. Svat (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    David Pawlak (For: United States of America)
    Representative
    Jennifer Toole (For: United States of America)
    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
    Arbitrator
    Carolyn B. Lamm
    Tribunal secretary
    Alejandro Escobar
    Tribunal secretary
    Ucheora O. Onwuamaegbu

    Authorities cited

    10
    • North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
      treaty
    • Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention)
      treaty
    • United States Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982)
      statute
    • United States Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.)
      statute
    • Pope and Talbot v. Government of Canada (Damages Award (31 May 2002))
      case law
    • Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7; 40 ILM 1129 (2001))
      case law
    • Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002))
      case law
    • Robert Azinian and others v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/2)
      case law
    • Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1 (6 December 2000))
      case law
    • United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1) · Matter