Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 76 million (including interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay USD 7.6 million toward arbitration and legal costs of claimant.

Kaplan replaced Philip after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Case settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state before any decision on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case suspended by agreement of claimant and respondent state as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 10 million (plus interest) against respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Case settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state before any decision on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 33 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim and decided that respondent state violated treaty. Award on damages pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Feliciano replaced Watts after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Case pending, but apparently discontinued after notice of claim filed, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Case pending, although reportedly inactive since filing of notice of arbitration, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 156,000 (including interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay all arbitration costs.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Case pending, but apparently discontinued after notice of intent filed, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Claim subsequently consolidated (see Tembec v USA and Terminal v USA). Claim withdrawn as required by Softwood Lumber Agreement of 2006 between Canada and USA. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, but apparently discontinued after notice of arbitration filed, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Decision subsequently annulled by ICSID annulment committee and new tribunal established to re-hear the claim.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim and decided that respondent state violated treaty. Award on damages pending as of 1 August 2010.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 270 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

No tribunal established to hear claim because formal claim was not filed.

NA

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 18 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal requires respondent state to pay 70% of arbitration costs, as well as USD 400,000 toward legal costs of claimant.

Case pending, but apparently discontinued after notice of claim filed, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately EUR 25 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction, but award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010. Case suspended since 2008 by agreement of claimant and respondent state as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal apparently split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Thomas replaced Barrera Valverde after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal required claimant to pay all arbitration costs as well as legal costs of respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal required claimant to pay all arbitration costs as well as legal costs of respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 1.7 million (including interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state before any decision on jurisdiction.

Case pending, but apparently discontinued after notice of arbitration filed, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 8.2 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award no publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, although reportedly inactive since filing of notice of arbitration, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim and decided that respondent state violated treaty. Claimant and respondent state then settled on USD 3 million in damages against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, with no final decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, but apparently discontinued after notice of intent filed, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal required claimant to pay all arbitration costs.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal required claimant to pay 75% of arbitration costs as well as USD 1.1 million toward legal costs of respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state. Case subsequently settled after an annulment tribunal was constituted but before any award on annulment was issued.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Other information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Claim withdrawn before tribunal established.

NA

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case subsequently discontinued by claimant based reportedly on agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Hanotiau replaced Faures after the award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 57 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Mustill replaced Fortier after the award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state. Decision subsequently annulled by ICSID annulment committee.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 17 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal required claimant to pay all arbitration costs as well as legal costs of respondent state.

Reisman replaced Christopher after the award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 3.7 million (including interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state. Award on jurisdiction not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 750,000 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay USD 95,000 toward arbitration and legal costs of claimant. Award of original tribunal not publicly available as of 1 August 2010. Decision subsequently annulled by ICSID annulment committee.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 5.9 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Rigo Sureda replaced Aguilar Alvarez, Lalonde replaced Carter, and Oreamuno Blanco replaced Reisman after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal required claimant to pay 90% of arbitration costs as well as 80% of legal costs of respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 75 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay 55% of arbitration costs.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Mayora Alvarado replaced Beck Furnish after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that tribunal did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal not established as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim and decided that respondent state violated treaty. Other information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded over USD 10 million against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay 75% of arbitration costs as well as USD 2 million toward legal costs of claimant.

Lalive replaced Rezek, Chemloul replaced Bedjaoui, and Gaillard replaced Witker Velasquez after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal required claimant to pay all arbitration costs as well as legal costs of respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 460,000 (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent to pay approximately 65% of arbitration costs.

Case pending, with no decision on jurisdiction, as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 125 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay 50% of arbitration and legal costs of claimant.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 6.3 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Information on claim not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 2.4 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim but delayed hearing claim. Case subsequently settled by agreement of claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 75 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state, but required respondent state to pay USD 6 million toward legal costs of claimant.

Claim withdrawn before tribunal established.

NA

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal required claimant to pay 2/3 of arbitration costs.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim and decided that respondent state violated treaty. Award on damages pending as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 2.5 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay all arbitration costs as well as legal costs of claimant.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately USD 5.5 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Bernal Verea replaced Aguilar Alvarez after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal required claimant to pay all arbitration costs as well as legal costs of respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Claim subsequently consolidated (see Canfor v USA and Tembec v USA). Claim withdrawn as required by Softwood Lumber Agreement of 2006 between Canada and USA. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Claim withdrawn before tribunal established.

NA

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Information unavailable. Award not publicly available as of 1 August 2010.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Briner replaced Veeder and Stern replaced Paulsson after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction. Case pending as of 1 August 2010.

Poncet replaced Price after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, decided that respondent state violated treaty, and awarded approximately EUR 29 million (plus interest) against respondent state. Tribunal required respondent state to pay EUR 1.8 million toward arbitration and legal costs of claimant.

Bunnag replaced Valaisathien after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Tribunal accepted jurisdiction over claim, but decided that respondent state did not violate treaty. Tribunal split arbitration costs between claimant and respondent state.

Magallon Gomez replaced Aguilar Alvarez after establishment of original tribunal but before award on jurisdiction.

Case settled before any decision on jurisdiction.

Tribunal rejected jurisdiction over claim. It is unclear how arbitration costs were divided between claimant and respondent state.