International investment arbitration – also known as investment treaty arbitration or investorState arbitration – is a procedure whereby foreign investors may seek a binding adjudication of claims against host States that have either violated investment protection treaty obligations or, in some circumstances, breached their contractual commitments or their national foreign investment law. The countries of Africa are party to numerous bilateral and multilateral investment treaties which are intended to promote investment by ensuring fair treatment of foreign investors and which permit arbitration of investor claims before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or similar fora. In 2015, economic growth in sub-Saharan African was severely weakened as African economies experienced the slowest growth rate since the 1998 global financial crisis. According to the IMF, the regional economy suffered primarily because of decreasing commodity prices and less accommodating global financial conditions. Over the past decade, China’s growing economy produced many benefits for Africa as Chinese businesses travelled the globe in search of cheap commodities. China’s increasing demand for raw materials, particularly in the energy, minerals, and oil sectors, resulted in a massive increase in African trade and export volumes. Recent shifts in China’s growth model, however, have resulted in significant slowdowns for African economies. African economies will need to adapt as global commodity prices are predicted to remain weak for the foreseeable future. Despite Africa’s weak economic performance, the number of investment arbitrations filed in 2015 remained in line with previous years and continue to be focused on the oil, gas and mining, and electric power industries. Countries in the region have concluded at least 1,404 investment treaties (including bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements and other treaties containing investment-related provisions), of which 864 are currently in force. Continental Africa comprises 54 countries, ranging from its largest economies, Nigeria and South Africa, to its smallest, Comoros and São Tomé and Príncipe. International Investment Arbitration in Africa: Year in Review 2015 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM For questions about international investment arbitration, please contact a member of our International Arbitration Team, or the authors of this review: Authors: Emma Lindsay Counsel, New York +1 212 541 2121 firstname.lastname@example.org Daniel Lewkowicz Associate, New York +1 212 541 1254 email@example.com PAGE 2 bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm BRYAN CAVE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM Investment Arbitration in the Region1 Nine new claims were initiated in 2015, bringing the total number of ICSID cases involving African parties as claimant investors, respondent States or both to 121. Including the nine new cases registered, 34 cases were pending in 2015. The nationalities of investors who have most frequently brought claims against African countries continue to be the United States, Britain and Italy. Canada, Portugal and Kenya saw their nationals bring investment claims against States in the region for the first time in 2015. 1 This review considers only investment arbitrations brought under the auspices of ICSID, which constitute the majority of investment arbitrations in the region. Top Nationalities of Investors with ICSID Arbitrations in Africa 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 BRITAIN UNITED STATES ITALY FRANCE NETHERLANDS SWITZERLAND BELGIUM GERMANY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO LUXEMBOURG AUSTRALIA EGYPT JORDAN SPAIN BURUNDI CHINA DENMARK GUINEA KUWAIT LEBANON LIBERIA MALI NORWAY SENEGAL TANZANIA BAHAMAS CANADA REPUBLIC OF CONGO GABON GAMBIA GHANA GREECE KENYA MALTA MAURITANIA NIGER NIGERIA PORTUGAL SAUDI ARABIA SOUTH AFRICA TOGO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ZIMBABWE Total Cases Pending Cases 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Cases Initiated Per Year Total Cases Initiated Per Year PAGE 3 bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm BRYAN CAVE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM Egypt, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea and Algeria remain the countries in the region that have faced the most investment claims. Cabo Verde faced its first investment claim in 2015. African Countries Facing Investment Claims 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 EGYPT DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO GUINEA ALGERIA CAMEROON TANZANIA TUNISIA BURUNDI GAMBIA REPUBLIC OF CONGO SENEGAL CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC GABON KENYA LIBERIA MOROCCO NIGERIA UGANDA ZIMBABWE CÔTE D’IVOIRE EQUATORIAL GUINEA GHANA MALI NIGER TOGO BURKINA FASO CABO VERDE MAURITANIA MAURITIUS MOZAMBIQUE RWANDA SEYCHELLES SOUTH AFRICA SUDAN Total Cases Pending Cases Of the nine new cases filed in 2015, three involve the oil, gas and mining industry and two are in the electric power and other energy sector. Of the disputes pending in 2015, 41 percent involve the oil, gas and mining industry. Investment Cases by Industry 14 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 43 16 10 10 8 8 7 6 5 5 4 Oil, Gas & Mining Other Industry Construction Transportation Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry Tourism Electric Power & Other Energy Services & Trade Finance Information & Communication Water, Sanitation & Flood Protection Outer Circle - Total Cases Inner Circle - Pending Cases PAGE 4 bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm BRYAN CAVE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM Claimants often rely on multiple bases for jurisdiction. For the claims brought in 2015, investment treaties were the most common basis for jurisdiction. In 2015, eight proceedings were resolved by discontinuances and four by awards. Additionally, there were four annulment proceedings commenced involving African nations. Instrument Invoked to Establish ICSID Jurisdiction 6 4 4 1 Investment treaty Investment law Contract Other Investment Treaties Involving African Countries Of the approximately 3,500 investment treaties currently in existence, more than a third involve African signatories. Egypt has concluded the most investment treaties, followed by Morocco and Tunisia. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 EGYPT MOROCCO TUNISIA ALGERIA MAURITIUS SOUTH AFRICA LIBYA SUDAN ZIMBABWE SENEGAL ETHIOPIA NIGERIA GHANA MOZAMBIQUE GUINEA BENIN MALI MAURITANIA BURKINA FASO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO TANZANIA CAMEROON GAMBIA CÔTE D’IVOIRE UGANDA KENYA GABON NAMIBIA ZAMBIA CHAD DJIBOUTI REPUBLIC OF CONGO RWANDA ANGOLA BOTSWANA BURUNDI COMOROS MALAWI SWAZILAND CAPE VERDE NIGER EQUATORIAL GUINEA MADAGASCAR SEYCHELLES TOGO LIBERIA GUINEA-BISSAU SIERRA LEONE ERITREA LESOTHO CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SOMALIA SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE SOUTH SUDAN Number of Treaties Number of Treaties in Force PAGE 5 bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm BRYAN CAVE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM African nations were involved in signing six new investment treaties in 2015. Mauritius was the region’s most active treaty maker, entering treaties with countries both within the region (Zambia) and outside the region (the United Arab Emirates). Brazil was the region’s most active treaty partner, inking treaties with two African countries, Angola and Mozambique, with which it has a shared colonial history and common language, as well as with Malawi. Countries Type of Treaty Date Signed Angola-Brazil Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement April 1, 2015 Burkina Faso-Canada Bilateral Investment Treaty April 20, 2015 Malawi-Brazil Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement June 25, 2015 Mauritius-United Arab Emirates Bilateral Investment Treaty September 20, 2015 Mauritius-Zambia Bilateral Investment Treaty July 14, 2015 Mozambique-Brazil Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement March 30, 2015 Other Developments in 2015 f The Cour Commune de Justice et d’Arbitrage (CCJA), the court created by the Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (the Organisation for the Harmonization of Commercial Law in Africa or OHADA), which includes 17 African states, issued two decisions in 2015 that point in different directions – one appears to promote arbitration, while the other might weaken arbitration in the OHADA region. • The first decision upheld the arbitral process by declining to annul an arbitral award granted to a Cameroonian corporation against the Cameroonian National Oil Company. Although the arbitrators had calculated damages using a method that neither party had argued, the CCJA held that the arbitrators had acted within their discretion. The CCJA also held that the award was not subject to annulment even though it was decided after the deadline set by the arbitral institution. The decision set a high bar for annulment of arbitral awards within the OHADA region and indicated the CCJA’s continuing support for arbitration. • The second decision annulled an award on the ground that the arbitrators had entered into separate fee agreements with the parties to the arbitration. The CCJA stated that the tribunal had deliberately overstepped the OHADA arbitration rules by entering into separate agreements which exceeded the fee limits set by the CCJA. In response, the three arbitrators involved wrote an open letter to the legal community condemning the CCJA decision. The decision likely will result in parties staying within the CCJA’s fee limits, but may result in fewer qualified arbitrators serving in the OHADA region. PAGE 6 bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm BRYAN CAVE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM f On December 13, 2015, South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma signed the Protection of Investment Act into law. The new legislation effectively replaces the investment protection granted to foreign investors under defunct bilateral investment treaties. Between 2012 and 2013, South Africa permitted numerous bilateral investment treaties to expire, including treaties with Germany, Spain, Belgium and Switzerland. Europe currently accounts for 75 percent of all foreign direct investment in South Africa. The act provides that all investors, both local and foreign, will be treated equally under the law and are entitled to property rights under Section 25 of the Constitution, among other substantive protections. The act reserves the Government’s right to regulate and take measures to redress historical, social and economic inequalities and injustices. It provides that disputes must be addressed domestically before the Government may consent to international arbitration, thereby removing the guarantee of international arbitration traditionally found in the country’s bilateral investment treaties. Some critics of the act believe that it will decrease foreign investment and result in increased unemployment. f The China Africa Joint Arbitration Centre (CAJAC) was established in Johannesburg, South Africa to resolve commercial disputes between Chinese and African parties. Numerous institutions came together to create the CAJAC, including the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA), the Africa ADR, the Association of Arbitrators of Southern Africa and the Shanghai International Trade Arbitration Centre. The CAJAC is expected to rival the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), which is located outside of the continent, and the Mauritius Centre for International Arbitration (MIAC), which was created as an arbitral center for Asian and African parties. Critical Times to Consult Counsel INVESTORS: f At the outset – when structuring an investment and negotiating project contracts f As soon as difficulties arise – when facing operational, regulatory or other issues in the host country f In discussions with the host country – when trying to resolve difficulties amicably f Before commencing a claim – when deciding whether and how to make a claim against the host country f In post-award proceedings – when seeking to collect on an award or reach a settlement with the host country f In getting the business relationship back on track – when moving forward in the wake of a dispute STATES: f At the outset – when negotiating and drafting investment treaties and national investment laws f In the pre-investment process – when inviting and accepting foreign investment f In the investment phase – when negotiating project contracts f As soon as notice of a dispute is given – when consulting with an investor about a potential investment arbitration claim f Upon receipt of a claim – when formulating an arbitral strategy in the initial stages of a dispute f In implementing or challenging an award – when considering next steps after the arbitration concludes PAGE 7 bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm BRYAN CAVE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM Authors Emma Lindsay Counsel, New York +1 212 541 2121 firstname.lastname@example.org Daniel Lewkowicz Associate, New York +1 212 541 1254 email@example.com Additional Contacts Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga Partner, Miami +1 786 322 7373 firstname.lastname@example.org Co-Leader of the International Arbitration Team Mathew Rea Partner, London +44 (0)20 3207 1203 email@example.com Co-Leader of the International Arbitration Team Constantin Achillas Partner, Paris +33 (0) 1 44 17 77 34 firstname.lastname@example.org Nigel Binnersley Partner, Hong Kong +852 3588 9110 email@example.com Rodney Page Partner, Washington, D.C. +1 202 508 6002 firstname.lastname@example.org About Our Team Bryan Cave’s International Arbitration Team provides a comprehensive service to clients around the world embracing all aspects of international dispute resolution. With offices in the most popular seats of arbitration, including London, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore and New York, we handle a broad range of matters, including international commercial and investment arbitration, public international law and complex commercial litigation, for a wide variety of business, financial, institutional and individual clients, including publicly-held multinational corporations, large and mid-sized privately-held companies, partnerships and emerging enterprises. We also advise sovereign clients with regard to their particular complex legal, regulatory and commercial challenges. Recognized by Global Arbitration Review in its GAR 100, our team features many practitioners who serve as both counsel and arbitrator and draws on the full range of subject-matter and industry experience across the firm, including in construction, energy, finance, manufacturing, mining and natural resources, pharmaceuticals, technology, telecommunications, tourism, transportation and many other sectors. Combining the common law and civil law traditions, members of our team are admitted to practice in many jurisdictions across the globe and speak a variety of languages. In addition, we work with an established network of local counsel in places where we do not have a direct presence, ensuring our strong market knowledge and quality of service on matters worldwide. This Review is published for the clients and friends of Bryan Cave LLP for informational purposes only and to provide a general understanding of the laws in different jurisdictions. The statements made in this publication are for general educational purposes only. Information contained herein is not to be considered as legal advice. You are urged to seek the advice of your legal counsel if you have any specific questions as to the application of the law. The receipt of this publication does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP. Bryan Cave is not necessarily licensed to practice in the jurisdiction or jurisdictions referred to in the Review. However, Bryan Cave works regularly with local counsel in relevant jurisdictions to arrange advice for clients on specific issues. A list of jurisdictions in which Bryan Cave has offices are as follows: America: Atlanta, Boulder, Charlotte, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Dallas, Denver, Irvine, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco, St. Louis, Washington, D.C. Europe: Frankfurt, Hamburg, London, Paris, Milan (Affiliated Firm). Asia: Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore. Under the ethics rules of certain bar associations, this review may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation. © 2016 Bryan Cave LLP. All Rights Reserved.