Compensation for Expropriations in Investor State Disputes

Page 1

Overview of Investment Treaty Claims as of 12/31/2007 1 290 known claims filed in total 62% with ICSID, 28% UNCITRAL, 10% other 78% BIT disputes, 13% NAFTA, 6% ECT, 3% CAFTA/Other 8 claims against Russia, 9 against India, none against China & Brazil Argentina has highest number of claims (46) registered against it 119 cases concluded 42 awarded in favor of State 40 awarded in favor of Investor 37 cases settled 10 awards on merits made public in 2007 5 awarded to investors Tribunals awarded $615 million of the $1.8 billion in total damages sought 1. Source: United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Page 3

Navigant Consulting s Experience in Investor State Disputes Served as financial and valuation experts in 33 investor state disputes 7 NAFTA Disputes 8 Energy Charter Treaty Disputes 18 BIT Disputes (ICSID, ICC, UNCITRAL) Even representation of Investors and States Cases span various industries energy, natural resources, infrastructure, financial services, manufacturing, retail Cases span various geographies North America, Latin America, East Europe, Africa, Middle east, Central Asia, South Asia, Far East Damages sought have exceeded $100 million in 15 cases, and have exceeded $1 billion in 4 cases. Page 4

Damages in Investor State Disputes Claimant s objective is to be adequately compensated for harm suffered due to State s actions Two key steps for achieving this goal Establish liability (breach of BIT or multilateral investment treaty) Establish damages arising from breach Compensation in expropriation matters entails valuation of Claimant s investment or business Requires the services of a valuation expert Claimants may not recover adequate damages even when liability is established if: is unsupported, inflated, or overly optimistic expert does not adopt a well reasoned and defensible valuation approach Page 5

What is the Role of the Expert? 1. Conduct a valuation of the expropriated investment 2. Prepare and submit valuation report 3. Testify before tribunal at the hearing Page 6

Conducting the 1. Determine what is to be valued 2. Gather information on company and investment 3. Interview key personnel (operations, finance, sales) 4. Perform valuation a. Income Approach (DCF ) b. Market Approach (Comparable Public Company and Comparable Transaction ) c. Other approaches if applicable (real options, prior transactions involving investment) 5. Reconcile valuation results and conduct sensitivity analyses 6. Determine final valuation Page 7

Suggested Approach for Conducting the Determine the Purpose Gather Subject Company Financial Data Conduct Interviews with Key Personnel if Possible Perform DCF Perform Comparable Public Company Perform Comparable Transaction Reconcile Approaches Determine Final Prepare a Report Develop Your Support Page 8

Key Considerations for s in Investor State Disputes Standard of Value Fair Market Value the amount at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when neither is acting under compulsion and when both have a reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts. (American Society of Appraisers) date Date of harm is most commonly used Current date has occasionally be adopted for unlawful takings Pre award interest Risk free or commercially observable rate (LIBOR, prime, etc.) Simple vs. compound interest Page 9 Challenges in conducting valuations in emerging markets Limited information on market/industry Language barriers (reliance on translated documents) Different accounting and financial reporting standards Risks (currency risk, political risk, market risk)

Common Errors in s Conducted for Investor State Disputes Wrong entity or asset is valued; valuation does not align with legal claim Only the DCF Method is Attempted conclusions not verifiable cannot be justified in conjunction with other valuation information pertaining to the investment Price paid for the investment at an earlier date Prices for comparable investments that are publicly traded or acquired Rates of return are not believable DCF Projections are speculative and unsupported Assumptions and input data are not adequately supported or justified No analysis of the economy or industry No differentiation of the risks in a foreign market Assumptions are unsupported A range of values is provided that is highly divergent Page 10

The Report Role of the valuation expert is to assist the tribunal in determining the appropriate compensation for the expropriation Elements of a successful valuation report: Know your audience Distill complex economic and business issues into concepts readily understood by the tribunal Provide adequate background (industry, company, investment), but do not make report overly long or convoluted Describe the steps performed in constructing the valuation Discuss all valuation methods considered and assumptions made Reconcile results of multiple valuation approaches Discuss the basis for any valuation discounts or premiums Support your work Produce all exhibits and source documents needed to recreate the valuation Page 11

What to Look For in Selecting a Expert Expert has prepared valuations in the context of arbitration/litigation The work should be subject to cross examination s done in other contexts are not subject to as much scrutiny (e.g., some fairness opinions, M&A analysis) Experience with investor state arbitration and the arbitral process is helpful Credibility with arbitrators is helpful (e.g., prior testimony before tribunal member) reports are robust, defensible and well articulated Expert s valuation reports have been adopted or relied upon by tribunals in the past Request a sample report Industry expertise is helpful but not necessary It is often more advantageous to engage a separate industry expert. Your industry expert can prepare a report on the market or the key technical inputs to the valuation (his/her area of strength) Your valuation expert can rely upon market/technical analysis to construct reasonable projections to use in the valuation Page 12

Page 13