Peru faces 22 pending demands in Ciadi, exceeding other countries in the region

Peru faces 22 pending demands in Ciadi, exceeding other countries in the region

A few weeks after starting 2025, Peru registers 22 pending cases against it before the International Center for Arrangement of Differences related to Inversiones CiadiWorld Bank entity. With this, Peru remains in the “podium” as the most demanded country in Latin America before said international institution.

The number of files open for controversies or possible breaches of the Peruvian State exceed the figures that other Latin American countries such as Mexico (20), Honduras (15), Colombia (13) or Venezuela (11) have. Even, according to the information available on the CIADI website, Peru would be the nation with the greatest number of active demands globally.

Of the 22 demands recorded in CIADI, a total of 19 arbitrations were initiated between 2020 and 2024. That is, almost 90% of the pending cases that companies have against the State were reported during and after the pandemic.

Only during the past year 4 demands of the companies Unión de Cervecerías Backus and Johnston Saa, Cervecería San Juan Sa were added. and ab inbev southern (December 30); Awarding Concessionaire Siguas, SA (October 16); South Peruano SA pipeline in liquidation (July 30); and natural gas from Lima and Callao S (April 1).

The most recent demand was presented by Backus, which seeks compensation for damages derived from the breach of international obligations established in the Treaty to Promotion and Protection of Investments between Peru and the United Kingdom.

This controversy arose after The Fiscal Court ratified that the company had a debt of more than US $ 439 million in selective consumption tax (ISC), accumulated between 2014-2019. For the company, the fiscal measures implemented by the government “violate international law.”

Other case presented in 2024 was that of Majes Siguas II, imposed by the Angostura concessionaire follows after alleged breaches in the contract signed with the Peruvian state. The amount that charges, the company that owns the concessionaire, claims the US $ 1.4 billion.

In addition, a case that had already closed at the end of 2024: The controversy maintained with Enagás by the concession of the Peruvian South pipeline (GSP). Although CIADI failed in favor of the company with compensation for Almost US $ 200 million, on January 23, an award rectification application was submittedso the process continues pending.

Peru records 22 pending cases against him against Ciadi, Above the demands faced by other countries.

Why do we have so many arbitrations?

For Ricardo Ampuero, specialist in international arbitrations, the growing amount of demands to the Peruvian State is related to various factors, being one of the most relevant the inclusion of CIADI clauses in the country’s investment contracts.

Although worldwide About 80% of CIADI cases arise supported by international treaties and only 15% By clauses in contracts, in Peru it is different. The expert explained that, unlike other countryS, Peru frequently uses dispute resolution clauses in investment contracts, allowing disputes to go to CIADI.

“Almost half of the cases that Peru has are cases that have been initiated on the basis of consent oriented in investment contracts. And that is a situation that has no other country. It is because Peru has this policy of including Caidi clauses in almost all its investment contracts ”, He explained to management.

Given this, Ampuero suggests a review of the CIADI clause inclusion policy in investment contracts, Not to eliminate them, but to apply them with criteria, evaluating factors such as the type of investment and the amount involved.

In addition, He highlighted the importance of improving contractual design, making contracts with clear rules and learning from past experiences.

“Peru has had many problems with the issue of expropriation of land for the construction of infrastructure projects. That should be a lesson learned so that in future contracts that are celebrated, they do not continue including deadlines That we know today they will not be able to meet and include more realistic deadlines, ”he explained.

Another factor that would have influenced the increase in arbitrations against Peru is political instability. Ampuero says that the high rotation of officials responsible for public policy decisions can generate changes in the rules of the game, which in turn can be perceived by investors as a violation of their rights, which finally derives in a more demand case.

The partner of the Olaechea study, Manuel Villa-García, He agreed that the growth of the demands is aligned to poor management by the Executive Power.

“It is because of the bad conduction of the Executive. In May of last year they created a multisectoral group to regulate arbitration, determined to modify the arbitration rules, when what they should do is create an office that can correctly administer contracts, ”he said.

Are we still successful in cases?

Despite having a high number of cases against CIADI, a few years ago the Chamber of Commerce of Lima (CCL) indicated that Peru had a very high success rate in arbitrations. At 2020, it was estimated that The Peruvian state won 80% of the cases in dispute, but would the trend have maintained?

In 2024, The State Coordination and Response System in International Investment Controversies (Sicreci) He reported that favorable results were had in two arbitrations: one imposed by Kaloti Metals & Logistics, and another against Freeport-McMoran Inc in the case with the Cerro Verde Minera.

Although he lost other cases -such as the controversy sustained with the Kuntur Wasi Airport Society for the concession of the Chinchero International Airport -Ampuero considered that the tendency to favorable results remains. The specialist even said that in some disputes with an unfavorable ruling for the Peruvian statethe amount to be paid to the company was already something provided for in the contracts.

“For example, the award was recently issued in the Chinchero case and in that case, without prejudice to the court recognizing an amount of compensation to the investor, that amount is actually a fraction of the total award. The largest part of what the award orders to pay is an amount that the contract itself says that it must be recognized on the scenario of a contractual resolution ”said Ampuero.

Another example, Experts point out, it is the Gramory case, where the court only ordered Peru Pay the amount that the company invested in the purchase of bonds, without considering its current value.

“Gramercy sued for US $ 1 billion and the award declared in part the demand in favor of Gramorcy, but ordered the State to pay US $ 100 million. Then Gramorcy led this award to the United States, negotiated with Peru and the State obtained a discount to end around US $ 80 million, ”explained Villa-García.

It should be added that, according to the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) in the multiannual macroeconomic framework 2024-2025, The amounts recognized in favor of investors in the cases lost to the ICADI would not have been significant and neither would they have affected the fiscal accounts.