Mr. Bacilio Amorrortu v. The Republic of Peru

At a glance

Parties

Mr. Bacilio Amorrortu (USA) v. the Republic of Peru

Case no.

PCA Case No. 2023-22 ("Amorrortu II")

Forum and rules

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013, PCA as registry; UNCITRAL Transparency Rules apply; seat New York

Treaty

United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (Chapter 10), in force 1 February 2009

Tribunal

David Unterhalter (Presiding Arbitrator), Bryan Schwartz, Hugo Perezcano Díaz

Sector

Oil and gas (Blocks III and IV, Talara Basin)

Outcome

Pending. The published documents are procedural orders only. Bifurcation was refused, and the hearing is set for 18–22 January 2027.

Amount

Claimed: approximately USD 265 million plus interest. In the earlier case (Amorrortu I), the claimant was ordered to pay USD 1,029,080.18 of Peru's costs.

The dispute

Mr. Amorrortu, a US national, says that his Peruvian company Baspetrol S.A.C. was wrongly denied a Direct Negotiation Process with PeruPetro for a contract to operate oil Blocks III and IV in the Talara Basin. He says the Blocks went instead to Graña y Montero through a bribery scheme involving the highest Peruvian authorities, including former First Lady Nadine Heredia. He claims that these corrupt practices breached the fair and equitable treatment obligation in Article 10.5 of the US–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. This is the second arbitration between the same parties: in PCA Case No. 2020-11, a majority dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction on 5 August 2022. Peru objects that the claims are time-barred under Article 10.18.1, that the claimant did not consult and negotiate or deliver a new notice of intent, that his dominant nationality is not US, and that he did not own or control Baspetrol. On the merits, Peru denies any corruption concerning the Blocks.

Key holdings

1. Bifurcation refused. All three objections (time bar, consultation and negotiation, notice of intent) go to the Tribunal's competence. They therefore fall in the residual class of 'other objections' in Article 10.20.4, where bifurcation is discretionary rather than mandatory. Each objection raises disputed facts that overlap with the merits, so the Tribunal declined to hear them in a preliminary phase. PO2, Section V
2. Peru had to produce prosecutorial materials from the Lava Jato investigation (journals or agendas, collaboration agreements and plea agreements) under the claimant's RFPs Nos. 1–4. Peru had relied on the testimony of prosecutor Dr Vela about the contents of those files. That affirmative use defeats any privilege or legal impediment based on Article 324 of Peru's Code of Criminal Procedure. Sensitivity concerns were met by an 'attorney's eyes only' regime. PO5, ¶¶ 27–45, 124
3. Attorney-client privilege under Article 9(4) of the IBA Rules was upheld for Items 1 and 5–14 of Peru's Second Privilege Log, which contain legal advice to PeruPetro or the Ministry of Energy and Mines. A confidentiality order cannot cure privilege. Items 2–4 are submissions made by a bidder's lawyer to PeruPetro and are not privileged; they must be produced, subject to redaction of Upland's confidential information. The request for documents on the Talara Refinery contract (RFP No. 6) was rejected. PO5, ¶¶ 80–92
4. Bryan Schwartz dissented in part. He found the 'counsel's eyes only' restriction excessive and would have ordered production on RFP No. 6. Earlier, in PO4, he had also dissented from the majority's rejection of RFP No. 7. PO5, Dissenting Opinion; PO4, Annex RFP No. 7
5. Confidential documents need not be destroyed until any court challenge to the Final Award has ended. Due process requires that the right to challenge an award not be curtailed. PO10, Section II
6. Peru's request to exclude exhibits C-182 to C-187 was rejected. The claimant says these Baspetrol documents were reconstructed from memory. Peru's request was timely, because time runs only from when the exhibits entered the record on 22 December 2025. Its objections go to the weight of the documents, not their admissibility, and exclusion is an exceptional measure. PO13, Section IV

Procedural history

1. 16 August 2022Notice of Arbitration under Chapter 10 of the US–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
2. 27 June 2023Procedural Order No. 1 sets the rules of procedure and fixes New York as the seat.
3. 21 August 2023Statement of Claim filed.
4. 18 March 2024Procedural Order No. 2 rejects Peru's request for bifurcation.
5. 29 April 2024Peru's deadline for its Statement of Defense and Objections to Jurisdiction.
6. 29 August 2024Procedural Order No. 4: first decision on document production, with Schwartz dissenting on RFP No. 7.
7. 6 February 2025Procedural Order No. 5: second decision on document production, with Schwartz dissenting in part.
8. 3 October 2025Procedural Order No. 10 adopts the confidentiality protocol and closes the document phase.
9. 19 May 2026Procedural Order No. 13 rejects Peru's request to exclude the reconstructed exhibits.
10. 14 July 2026Peru files its Rejoinder and Reply on Jurisdiction. The hearing is scheduled for 18–22 January 2027 at ICSID in Washington, D.C.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• David Unterhalter President
• Bryan Schwartz Co-arbitrator (dissented in part in PO4 and PO5)
• Hugo Perezcano Díaz Co-arbitrator

For the claimant

Reed Smith LLP

For the respondent

Foley Hoag LLP · Comisión Especial que Representa el Estado en Controversias Internacionales de Inversión, Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas · Estudio Navarro & Pazos Abogados

Experts

Aníbal Quiroga (claimant) · Monica Yaya (claimant) · José Zamalloa (claimant) · Carlos Vizquerra (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• US–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
• oil and gas
• Talara Basin
• Blocks III and IV
• PeruPetro
• Graña y Montero
• Lava Jato
• corruption
• fair and equitable treatment
• bifurcation
• Article 10.20.4
• time bar Article 10.18.1
• dual nationality
• document production
• secrecy of criminal investigations
• attorney-client privilege
• attorneys' eyes only
• exclusion of evidence

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