Juan Carlos Argüello and Ernesto Argüello v. Republic of Panama

At a glance

Parties

Juan Carlos Argüello and Ernesto Argüello v. Republic of Panama

Case no.

ICSID Case No. ARB/25/39

Forum and rules

ICSID Convention arbitration; ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of 1 July 2022, as modified by the U.S.-Panama TPA; procedural languages English and Spanish

Treaty

United States–Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (in force 31 October 2012); Request for Arbitration filed under Article 10.16.4

Tribunal

Prof. Alfredo Bullard González (President), Prof. Dr. Stephan Schill, Prof. Dr. Chiara Giorgetti

Sector

Real estate project; construction (per the ICSID case database)

Outcome

Pending. The published documents are procedural orders only. PO 3 excluded one of the Claimants' co-counsel for a time; PO 4 dismissed the Claimants' application to exclude the Respondent's new counsel.

Amount

Not stated in the published documents. Initial advance on costs: USD 400,000, paid in equal shares of USD 200,000 by each side.

The dispute

Two individual investors, Juan Carlos and Ernesto Argüello, brought claims against Panama under the United States–Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. According to the ICSID case database, the dispute concerns a real estate project in the construction sector. The published procedural orders do not describe the investment, the measures challenged or the claims on the merits. They show that Panama filed a Request for Bifurcation on 24 July 2026, including a preliminary objection based on the Claimants' nationality. The Claimants have third-party funding, and an affiliate of Burford Capital is named as their funder. The published orders deal mainly with two applications to exclude counsel and with the transparency regime.

Key holdings

1. Transparency. Under Article 10.21 of the TPA, ICSID must publish the parties' memorials, counter-memorials, replies and rejoinders promptly. Panama had asked for publication only after the award. Exhibits, witness statements and expert reports are not published. Procedural Order No. 2, ¶¶ 17–18 and fn. 2
2. The Tribunal may regulate counsel's participation under ¶ 8.2 of PO 1 read with Article 44 of the ICSID Convention. The test is not limited to conflicts of interest. It is whether the circumstances create an appearance of impropriety that could compromise the integrity of the proceedings, as judged by a reasonable and informed third-party observer. Procedural Order No. 3, ¶¶ 56, 63
3. The President was serving as an expert on Peruvian law in an unrelated ICSID case, instructed by Cristina Ferraro of Miranda & Amado. The Claimants then retained that firm after the Tribunal was constituted. The Tribunal found that these two facts together created an appearance of impropriety, although no conflict existed under the IBA Guidelines or the UNCITRAL Code of Conduct. It reached this finding even though the aggravating factors present in HEP v. Slovenia were absent here. Procedural Order No. 3, ¶¶ 59, 71–90
4. Remedy. Ms. Ferraro is excluded only for as long as the President's expert engagement continues; Panama had asked for exclusion for the whole case. The other Miranda & Amado lawyers and White & Case LLP are not affected. Panama's requests for a prior-consultation duty before new counsel is designated, and for extra safeguards against ex parte contact, were dismissed. Procedural Order No. 3, ¶¶ 91–98
5. The Claimants applied to exclude Jana & Gil Dispute Resolution, or at least Andrés Jana, as counsel for Panama. The application was dismissed. Mr. Jana sits as one member of a three-person tribunal in a commercial arbitration in which the President acts as counsel. That arbitration is closed and awaiting its award. An overlap between the roles of arbitrator and counsel in unrelated cases does not, without more, create an appearance of impropriety. It differs in kind from the instructed expert-counsel relationship addressed in PO 3, and there were no indicia of a quid pro quo. Procedural Order No. 4, ¶¶ 62–78
6. Panama filed a 33-page Request for Bifurcation within hours of designating Jana & Gil. This raises a question whether Panama breached ¶ 8.1 of PO 1 by notifying the designation late. Exclusion is not the remedy for such a breach; any breach may be reflected in the allocation of costs. Panama was ordered to give a detailed account of when Jana & Gil was instructed and of its role in the Request for Bifurcation. Procedural Order No. 4, ¶¶ 84–86, 95(c)
7. Jana & Gil also represents Honduras in a separate ICSID arbitration brought by the same Claimants. That does not justify exclusion. The Claimants identified no confidential information at risk. Both cases are subject to treaty transparency rules, and the nationality objection rests on public information. Costs of the application are reserved. Procedural Order No. 4, ¶¶ 89–95

Procedural history

1. 31 July 2025Request for Arbitration filed under Article 10.16.4 of the TPA.
2. 11 August 2025Request registered by the ICSID Acting Secretary-General.
3. 12 December 2025Tribunal constituted. Prof. Bullard was chosen as President through a list-exchange protocol agreed by the parties.
4. 27 January 2026First session held by video conference.
5. 13 March 2026Procedural Order No. 1 (procedural rules and calendar) and Procedural Order No. 2 (transparency and confidentiality) issued.
6. 30 March 2026Procedural Order No. 3: Cristina Ferraro excluded as the Claimants' counsel until the President's concurrent expert engagement ends; Panama's other requests dismissed.
7. 10 June 2026Amended procedural calendar issued, as agreed by the parties on 9 June 2026; Claimants' Memorial on the Merits filed.
8. 24 July 2026Panama designated Jana & Gil as co-counsel and filed its Request for Bifurcation.
9. 2 September 2026Procedural Order No. 4: Claimants' application to exclude Jana & Gil dismissed; Panama directed to explain the timing of the firm's instruction; costs reserved.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Alfredo Bullard González President — appointed by the parties jointly
• Stephan W. Schill Co-arbitrator — appointed by the claimant
• Chiara Giorgetti Co-arbitrator — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

White & Case LLP · Miranda & Amado Abogados

For the respondent

Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas · Jana & Gil Dispute Resolution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement
• exclusion of counsel
• appearance of impropriety
• conflict of interest
• arbitrator as expert witness
• IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest
• IBA Guidelines on Party Representation
• UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators
• HEP v. Slovenia
• Einarsson v. Canada
• Rompetrol v. Romania
• transparency
• bifurcation
• third-party funding
• Burford Capital
• DR-CAFTA
• real estate
• nationality objection

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.