Enron Corp. v. Argentine Republic
Tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
I.C.S.I.D. Case No. ARB/01/3 (May 22, 2007)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In an effort to restore its failing economy and attract foreign investors, Argentina (defendant) enacted the Gas Law, which established a regulatory framework for investments in the gas industry. The framework included guarantees that tariffs would be calculated in U.S. dollars and adjusted each year based on the U.S. Producer Price Index (PPI). The regulations proved successful for some time, with Argentina drawing billions of dollars in capital. However, in 1998, Argentina’s economy again began to fall apart, with unemployment and political unrest on the rise. As a result of these volatile economic conditions, Argentina passed the Emergency Law, which effectively eliminated peso-dollar convertibility, as well as the rights formerly guaranteed to gas companies of U.S. dollar-calculated payments and PPI-based tariff adjustments. Foreign investors that were invested in the gas sector, including Enron Corporation (Enron) (plaintiff), claimed that Argentina’s emergency regulations had resulted in significant loss on their investments and violated Argentina’s obligation under the U.S.-Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) to treat investors fairly and equitably.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.