 Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of ConsistencyDavid Gaukrodger
No 2013/3, OECD Working Papers on International Investment from OECD Publishing Abstract: Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders’ reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to “their” company, typically a loss in value of the shares; it is generally contrasted with direct injury to shareholder rights, such as interference with shareholder voting rights.) This paper considers the consistency issues raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. The paper first compares the approach to shareholder claims in ISDS with advanced systems of national corporate law (and other international law). ISDS arbitrators have consistently found that shareholders can claim individually for reflective loss in ISDS under typical BITs. This can be seen as a success story from the point of view of consistency of legal interpretation and improves investor protection for potential claimant shareholders in many cases. In contrast, however, advanced national systems and international law generally apply what has been called a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Second, the paper analyses the policy issues relating to consistency that are raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. National and international law barring shareholder claims for reflective loss is often explicitly driven by policy considerations relating to consistency, predictability, avoidance of double recovery and judicial economy. Limiting recovery to the company is seen as both more efficient and fairer to all interested parties. In contrast, ISDS tribunals and commentators have generally given limited consideration to the policy consequences of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss. The third part of the paper addresses the issue of company recovery (including two different existing systems which expand the ability of foreign-controlled companies to recover in ISDS) and its relevance to shareholder claims for reflective loss. The paper also contains a series of questions for discussion and has been discussed by governments participating in an OECD-hosted investment roundtable. Keywords: access to justice; arbitrators; bilateral investment treaties; company law; comparative law; competitive neutrality; consistency; consistency of arbitral decisions; corporate law; creditors; creditors’ rights; derivative action; derivative injury; derivative loss; domestic impact of investment law; double jeopardy; double recovery; foreign investment; international arbitration; international economic law; international investment; international investment agreements; international investment law; investment arbitration; investment treaties; investor-state dispute settlement; judicial economy; level playing field; multiple claims; reflective injury; reflective loss; settlement; shareholder claims; shareholder remedies; shareholder rights; shareholders; stockholder remedies; stockholders; treaty shopping (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oec:dafaaa:2013/3-en Access Statistics for this paper More papers in OECD Working Papers on International Investment from OECD Publishing Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.