BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina

• Decision Date: 05 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–138.,12–138.
• Citation: 572 U.S. 25,188 L.Ed.2d 220,134 S.Ct. 1198
• Parties: BG GROUP PLC, Petitioner v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

572 U.S. 25

134 S.Ct. 1198

188 L.Ed.2d 220

BG GROUP PLC, Petitioner

v.REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA.

No. 12–138.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Dec. 2, 2013.

Decided March 5, 2014.

Thomas Goldstein, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Ginger D. Anders, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting vacatur and remand.

Jonathan I. Blackman, New York, NY, for Respondent.

Alexander A. Yanos, Elliot Friedman, Julia A. Lisztwan, Freshfields Bruckhaus, DeringerUS LLP, New York, NY, Thomas C. Goldstein, Counsel of Record, Kevin K. Russell, Tejinder Singh, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Jonathan I. Blackman, Counsel of Record, Carmen Amalia Corrales, Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, Matthew D. Slater, Teale Toweill, M. Veronica Yepez, Caroline Stanton, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Justice BREYERdelivered the opinion of the Court.

Article 8 of an investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina contains a dispute-resolution provision, applicable to disputes between one of those nations and an investor from the other.SeeAgreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Art. 8(2), Dec. 11, 1990, 1765 U.N.T.S. 38(hereinafter Treaty).The provision authorizes either party to submit a dispute "to the decision of the competent tribunal of the Contracting Party in whose territory the investment was made,"i.e., a local court.Art. 8(1).And it provides for arbitration

"(i) where, after a period of eighteen months has elapsed from the moment when the dispute was submitted to the competent tribunal ..., the said tribunal has not given its final decision; [or]

"(ii) where the final decision of the aforementioned tribunal has been made but the Parties are still in dispute."Art. 8(2)(a).

The Treaty also entitles the parties to agree to proceed directly to arbitration.Art. 8(2)(b).

This case concerns the Treaty's arbitration clause, and specifically the local court litigation requirement set forth in Article 8(2)(a).The question before us is whether a court of the United States, in reviewing an arbitration award made under the Treaty, should interpret and apply the local litigation requirement de novo, or with the deference that courts ordinarily owe arbitration decisions.That is to say, who—court or arbitrator—bears primary responsibility for interpreting and applying the local litigation requirement to an underlying controversy?In our view, the matter is for the arbitrators, and courts must review their determinations with deference.

I

A

In the early 1990's, the petitioner, BG Group plc, a British firm, belonged to a consortium that bought a majority interest in an Argentine entity called MetroGAS.MetroGAS was a gas distribution company created by Argentine law in 1992, as a result of the government's privatization of its state-owned gas utility.Argentina distributed the utility's assets to new, private companies, one of which was MetroGAS.It awarded MetroGAS a 35–year exclusive license to distribute natural gas in Buenos Aires, and it submitted a controlling interest in the company to international public tender.BG Group's consortium was the successful bidder.

At about the same time, Argentina enacted statutes providing that its regulators would calculate gas "tariffs" in U.S. dollars, and that those tariffs would be set at levels sufficient to assure gas distribution firms, such as MetroGAS, a reasonable return.

In 2001 and 2002, Argentina, faced with an economic crisis, enacted new laws.Those laws changed the basis for calculating gas tariffs from dollars to pesos, at a rate of one peso per dollar.The exchange rate at the time was roughly three pesos to the dollar.The result was that MetroGAS' profits were quickly transformed into losses.BG Group believed that these changes (and several others) violated the Treaty; Argentina believed the contrary.

B

In 2003, BG Group, invoking Article 8 of the Treaty, sought arbitration.The parties appointed arbitrators; they agreed to site the arbitration in Washington, D.C.; and between 2004 and 2006, the arbitrators decided motions, received evidence, and conducted hearings.BG Group essentially claimed that Argentina's new laws and regulatory practices violated provisions in the Treaty forbidding the "expropriation" of investments and requiring that each nation give "fair and equitable treatment" to investors from the other.Argentina denied these claims, while also arguing that the arbitration tribunal lacked "jurisdiction" to hear the dispute.App. to Pet. for Cert. 143a–144a, 214a–218a, 224a–232a.According to Argentina, the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction because: (1) BG Group was not a Treaty-protected "investor"; (2) BG Group's interest in MetroGAS was not a Treaty-protected "investment"; and (3) BG Group initiated arbitration without first litigating its claims in Argentina's courts, despite Article 8's requirement.Id., at 143a–171a.In Argentina's view, "failure by BG to bring its grievance to Argentine courts for 18 months renders its claims in this arbitration inadmissible."Id., at 162a.

In late December 2007, the arbitration panel reached a final decision.It began by determining that it had "jurisdiction" to consider the merits of the dispute.In support of that determination, the tribunal concluded that BG Group was an "investor," that its interest in MetroGAS amounted to a Treaty-protected "investment," and that Argentina's own conduct had waived, or excused, BG Group's failure to comply with Article 8's local litigation requirement.Id., at 99a, 145a, 161a, 171a.The panel pointed out that in 2002, the President of Argentina had issued a decree staying for 180 days the execution of its courts' final judgments (and injunctions) in suits claiming harm as a result of the new economic measures.Id., at 166a–167a.In addition, Argentina had established a "renegotiation process" for public service contracts, such as its contract with MetroGAS, to alleviate the negative impact of the new economic measures.Id., at 129a, 131a.But Argentina had simultaneously barred from participation in that "process" firms that were litigating against Argentina in court or in arbitration.Id., at 168a–171a.These measures, while not making litigation in Argentina's courts literally impossible, nonetheless "hindered" recourse "to the domestic judiciary" to the point where the Treaty implicitly excused compliance with the local litigation requirement.Id., at 165.Requiring a private party in such circumstances to seek relief in Argentina's courts for 18 months, the panel concluded, would lead to "absurd and unreasonable result[s]."Id., at 166a.

On the merits, the arbitration panel agreed with Argentina that it had not "expropriate[d]" BG Group's investment, but also found that Argentina had denied BG Group "fair and equitable treatment."Id., at 222a–223a, 240a–242a.It awarded BG Group $185 million in damages.Id., at 297a.

C

In March 2008, both sides filed petitions for review in the District Court for the District of Columbia.BG Group sought to confirm the award under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act.See Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Art. IV, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2519, T.I.A.S.No. 6997(New York Convention)(providing that a party may apply "for recognition and enforcement" of an arbitral award subject to the Convention);9 U.S.C. §§ 204,207(providing that a party may move "for an order confirming [an arbitral] award" in a federal court of the "place designated in the agreement as the place of arbitration if such place is within the United States").Argentina sought to vacate the award in part on the ground that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction.See§ 10(a)(4)(a federal court may vacate an arbitral award "where the arbitrators exceeded their powers").

The District Court denied Argentina's claims and confirmed the award.764 F.Supp.2d 21(D.D.C.2011);715 F.Supp.2d 108(D.D.C.2010).But the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed.665 F.3d 1363(2012).In the appeals court's view, the interpretation and application of Article 8's local litigation requirement was a matter for courts to decide de novo, i.e., without deference to the views of the arbitrators.The Court of Appeals then went on to hold that the circumstances did not excuse BG Group's failure to comply with the requirement.Rather, BG Group must "commence a lawsuit in Argentina's courts and wait eighteen months before filing for arbitration."Id., at 1373.Because BG Group had not done so, the arbitrators lacked authority to decide the dispute.And the appeals court ordered the award vacated.Ibid.

BG Group filed a petition for certiorari.Given the importance of the matter for international commercial arbitration, we granted the petition.See, e.g.,K. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy & Interpretation 430–432 (2010)(explaining that dispute-resolution mechanisms allowing for arbitration are a "critical element" of modern day bilateral investment treaties); C. Dugan, D. Wallace, N. Rubins, & B. Sabahi, Investor–State Arbitration 51–52, 117–120 (2008)(referring to the large number of investment treaties that provide for arbitration, and explaining that some also impose prearbitration requirements such as waiting periods, amicable negotiations, or exhaustion of local remedies).

II

As we have said, the question before us is who—court or arbitrator—bears primary responsibility for interpreting and applying Article 8's local court litigation provision.Put in terms of standards of judicial review, should a United States court review the arbitrators' interpretation and application of the provision de novo, or with the deference that courts ordinarily show arbitral decisions on matters the parties have committed to arbitration?Compare, e.g., ...