Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Limited v. Plurinational State of Bolivia

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Limited v. the Plurinational State of Bolivia
Case no.: PCA Case No. 2016-39; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 23-cv-3031 (CRC)
Forum and rules: UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration; hearing on jurisdiction and merits held in Paris
Treaty: United Kingdom–Bolivia BIT signed on 24 May 1988, extended to Bermuda on 9 December 1992
Tribunal: Prof. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Presiding Arbitrator), Prof. John Y. Gotanda, Prof. Philippe Sands
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Christopher R. Cooper)
Sector: Mining and metallurgy (tin and antimony smelters, tin mine)
Outcome: According to the D.C. court, the tribunal held in September 2023 that Bolivia breached the Treaty by failing to compensate Glencore. On 9 January 2026 the court denied Bolivia's motion to dismiss the enforcement petition. The award itself is not among the published texts.
Amount: Awarded, as reported by the D.C. court: more than $253 million, plus post-award interest (later clarified by a corrected award).

The dispute

Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Limited held, through Panamanian companies and Bolivian subsidiaries, the Vinto Tin Smelter, the Antimony Smelter, tin stock stored at the Antimony Smelter and the lease of the Colquiri Mine. Glencore International acquired these assets in 2005 and assigned them to the Bermuda claimant. Between 2007 and 2012 Bolivia nationalized all of them by supreme decrees. For Colquiri, this followed the takeover of the mine by mining cooperatives in 2012. Glencore claimed under the UK–Bolivia BIT that these were unlawful expropriations without compensation and that Bolivia failed to protect the Colquiri lease. Bolivia objected that the claimant made no active investment, was a Swiss-controlled shell, had abused process by restructuring when a dispute was foreseeable, held the assets only indirectly, and acquired them through an illegal privatization (clean hands). It also argued that the claims belonged under ICC clauses in the contracts and that the tin stock claim was never notified.

Key holdings

Bifurcation refused. Only the abuse of process objection met the criteria for separate treatment. For efficiency, the Tribunal heard all preliminary objections together with liability and deferred quantum to a later phase if needed. Procedural Order No. 2, ¶¶ 56, 59
The abuse of process objection is serious and substantial. Although Glencore Bermuda's acquisition began in March 2005 and the first alleged breach came in February 2007, valid questions arose about the purpose of the restructuring and the foreseeability of the dispute. The other objections were either not serious enough or too intertwined with the merits: active investment, veil piercing, indirect investment, clean hands, ICC clauses and tin stock notice. Procedural Order No. 2, ¶¶ 42–55
Bolivia needed neither prior notice nor the Tribunal's leave to seek discovery from former President Sánchez de Lozada under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The Tribunal refused to order withdrawal or to declare the evidence inadmissible in advance, reserving its admissibility and weight. Procedural Order No. 3, ¶¶ 13–14
After the jurisdiction and merits hearing, the Tribunal found that issues of jurisdiction and merits may be intertwined with quantum. It called for a further round of quantum submissions and a quantum hearing. Procedural Order No. 6, ¶¶ 3–4
Bolivia's request to suspend the arbitration because of the COVID-19 pandemic was refused. Its deadline for the Rejoinder on Quantum was extended to 5 June 2020, with leave to apply later to add documents it could not obtain. Procedural Order No. 11, ¶¶ 17–19
Enforcement: service on Bolivia was valid under the FSIA. Glencore addressed the letter rogatory exactly as Bolivia had designated its Inter-American Convention central authority: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, General Directorate of Legal Affairs. When Bolivia did not certify execution, Glencore could proceed to service by mail under § 1608(a)(3). The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court declined to enforce the award without briefing on the merits. D.C. District Court Opinion and Order, pp. 11–14

Procedural history

19 July 2016Notice of Arbitration filed under Article 8 of the Treaty and the UNCITRAL Rules.
29 March 2017Terms of Appointment issued; Procedural Order No. 1 followed on 31 May 2017.
15 August 2017Statement of Claim filed.
18 December 2017Bolivia files its Preliminary Objections, Statement of Defence and Reply on Bifurcation.
31 January 2018Procedural Order No. 2: objections joined to liability; quantum deferred.
20–23 May 2019Hearing on jurisdiction and merits at the ICC Hearing Centre, Paris.
31 May 2019Procedural Order No. 6 opens a quantum phase.
5 May 2020Procedural Order No. 11 refuses suspension and extends Bolivia's quantum rejoinder deadline; quantum hearing rescheduled for 5–9 October 2020.
September 2023Award: Bolivia ordered to pay more than $253 million plus post-award interest; a corrected award later clarified interest (as reported by the D.C. court).
9 January 2026U.S. District Court for D.C. denies Bolivia's motion to dismiss the enforcement petition for insufficient service.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by: Ricardo Ramírez Hernández President
John Y. Gotanda Co-arbitrator
Philippe Sands Co-arbitrator
Christopher R. Cooper Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — appointed by a court

Run a conflict check on these names →