Streaming agreements are increasingly relied on by mining companies as a primary source of financing. As always, in parallel with the increase in popularity of particular transactions, there has been a corresponding increase in disputes between counterparties. This article explores the nature of streaming agreements, the types of dispute that can arise and how contracting parties can take steps at the outset to put themselves in the best position to mitigate disputes risk.
COVID-19 is putting tremendous strain on the life sciences and healthcare sector. Disputes may be more disruptive than usual during this time, not least because they put further pressure on often already limited financial and managerial resources. Therefore, many parties are seeking alternative ways to avoid disputes. However, some disputes are inevitable and a number are likely to be resolved through international arbitration.
States have taken urgent and extraordinary steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and address the public health and economic crises that it has caused. Some such measures are aimed directly at the need to treat those affected by the virus, while others aim to address the virus's unprecedented economic impact on the world economy. Inevitably, some of these measures will affect foreign investors and their investments in host states, triggering investor-state disputes.
The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing businesses of all shapes and sizes to pursue alternate sources of funding to ensure the advancement of pending claims, bring new claims arising out of the pandemic and enhance cash flow where possible to survive. Understanding the range of dispute funding options available is critical to assess whether and, if so, how such funding can be leveraged to help a business weather the current COVID-19 environment and what is yet to come.
Investor-state dispute settlement is an important feature of investment treaties as it is the procedural mechanism through which investors can claim compensation for a violation of a substantive investor-protection standard. The traditional mechanism (ie, investment arbitration between the investor and the host state, modelled on commercial arbitration) has been increasingly criticised. Hostility to the traditional model has led to changes in individual treaties and wider reform initiatives.
In recent years, many of the leading arbitral institutions have amended their rules in order to make arbitration more responsive to users' needs. A key development has been the introduction of emergency arbitrator procedures, which enable parties to obtain urgent relief before the substantive tribunal is formed. These new developments are attracting significant attention from parties and arbitrators – but have enforcement mechanisms kept pace?
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is a mechanism that enables foreign investors to resolve disputes with the government of the country where their investment was made (host state) in a neutral forum through binding international arbitration. Without ISDS, many foreign investors would be left with no meaningful remedy in the face of arbitrary, capricious or other unfair treatment by a host state.