International Arbitration, ADR, and Investment Dispute Developments: November 2025

CLIENT ADVISORY MEMORANDUM

Subject: Key International Arbitration, ADR, and Investment Dispute Developments

For: Investors, Corporations, States, Counsel, Risk Advisers

Prepared by: Senior Counsel with extensive experience in international arbitration

OVERVIEW

November 2025 saw important shifts in how courts handle the assignment and enforcement of awards under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Notably, the courts in England clarified that such awards cannot be assigned to third parties. Meanwhile, a number of new awards and procedural developments continue to emerge from ICSID‑registered disputes, maintaining momentum in treaty‑based investment arbitration.

These developments affect the liquidity and transferability of arbitration awards, enforcement strategies, and the structuring of future investments and claims.

I. English Commercial Court Rules That ICSID and ECT Awards Cannot Be Assigned (10 November 2025)

A. Facts and Procedural History

On 10 November 2025 the English Commercial Court handed down judgment in OperaFund Eco‑Invest SICAV Plc v The Kingdom of Spain. The claimant sought to assign to itself the rights under a previously rendered ICSID/ECT award, purporting to step into the shoes of the original award creditor for enforcement purposes. The assignment was part of a corporate reorganisation or transfer process. The respondent state, Spain, opposed enforcement on the basis that the award was not assignable under applicable law. (JD Supra)

B. Court Reasoning and Holding

The Court held that:

• There is no rule under customary international law that makes ICSID or ECT awards assignable.
• The wording and scheme of both the ICSID Convention and the ECT indicate that awards under these regimes are meant to benefit the original party (the investor as defined in the arbitration agreement), and not to be freely transferable to third parties.
• Therefore the purported assignment was ineffective. The assignee (OperaFund Eco-Invest) cannot substitute for the original claimant in enforcement proceedings. (JD Supra)

C. Implications for Clients

This ruling has major consequences for investors, funds, creditors, and purchasers of award rights worldwide:

• Award‑holders cannot reliably sell or transfer ICSID/ECT awards to third parties in England or other jurisdictions likely to follow similar reasoning.
• Entities seeking to purchase or securitise awards will face significant obstacles.
• Enforcement strategy must consider the identity of the original award creditor; third‑party purchasers may be prevented from acting independently.
• Where assignment or transfer is being considered, parties must evaluate the legal regime of the intended enforcement jurisdiction carefully.

For states and sovereign respondents, the decision reduces uncertainty about unknown third‑party claimants seeking enforcement. For counsel, the decision underscores the importance of maintaining continuity between award creditor and enforcement claimant.

D. Risks and Strategic Considerations

• Investors contemplating sale or restructuring should be aware of the risk that awards may become “stranded assets” if assignment is challenged.
• Purchasers must undertake rigorous due diligence regarding assignability and enforceability in relevant jurisdictions.
• If multiple jurisdictions disagree on assignability, enforcement outcomes may become fragmented or unpredictable across jurisdictions.

II. New ICSID Award in November 2025: Access Business Group LLC v United Mexican States (ICSID Case No ARB/23/15)

A. Facts and Procedural History

According to the listing of recent awards, on 21 November 2025 the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes registered a final award in favour of the investor, Access Business Group LLC, against the United Mexican States. (Transnational Dispute Management)

The underlying dispute concerned investment treaty protections (“treaty‑based arbitration”) invoked by the claimant under a bilateral investment treaty. The claim was commenced under ICSID dispute settlement rules.

B. Significance

The registration of this award continues to illustrate two important features of 2025 for investors and states:

• Despite global economic and regulatory uncertainty, ICSID remains an active and effective forum for investor‑state dispute resolution.
• States remain exposed to potential liability under old and new treaties; seemingly routine regulatory or administrative decisions by host states may translate into substantial arbitration risk and financial exposure.

For investors, the new award offers a fresh example of successful treaty‑based arbitration protections being enforced. For states, the continuing flow of awards underlines the importance of assessing liability and regulatory risk before modifying investment‑related regimes.

C. Implications for Clients

• Investors should view ICSID and treaty‑based arbitration as a viable ongoing avenue for recouping investments, even in 2025.
• Sovereigns should ensure that privatizations, regulatory changes, or administrative interventions are carefully calibrated, and that potential compensation exposure is assessed.
• Counsel advising on new investments must maintain robust compliance, licensing, and documentation procedures to reduce risk.

D. Risks and Considerations

• Award enforcement may still face resistance or delay, especially under sovereign immunity claims or in jurisdictions unfriendly to treaty‑based awards.
• Award‑holders should prepare enforcement strategies early — registration alone does not guarantee satisfaction.
• For states, repetitive awards might lead to financial strain, reputational harm, or destabilization of regulatory objectives.

III. Broader Context: 2025 ICSID Activity and Institutional Trends

A. ICSID Annual Report 2025 Published (10 November 2025)

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes published its 2025 annual report in November. The report reflects continued high activity in treaty‑based arbitration, growth in filings, and increasing globalization of investor‑state disputes. (Mondaq)

For clients — both investors and states — the report provides a useful macro‑level signal: arbitration remains central in international investment law and is unlikely to recede in coming years.

B. Diverging National Approaches to Award Assignability and Enforcement

The November 2025 English court decision on assignability illustrates the growing divergence among national courts on how to treat tribunal awards under ICSID and ECT. While some jurisdictions may allow assignment or enforcement by third parties, others (like England & Wales) may reject it entirely. This divergence complicates the “secondary market” for awards and may increase litigation unpredictability.

C. Strategic Implications

Clients should avoid assuming uniform treatment of awards across jurisdictions. Award‑holding entities, purchasers, and states need to tailor strategies to specific enforcement venues and domestic courts’ precedents.

IV. Strategic Advice for Clients and Counsel

1. When structuring investments and arbitration clauses, preserve clarity on original claimant identity and avoid assumption that awards are freely transferable or assignable.
2. Investors should consider parallel enforcement strategies in multiple jurisdictions to mitigate risk that one court’s refusal to recognize assignment will block recovery.
3. States should recognise that treaty obligations remain live and enforceable, even where awards may be unpopular or challenging for domestic policy.
4. Legal advisers should update risk assessments and compliance frameworks in light of increased ICSID activity and evolving judicial attitudes toward award assignment.
5. Where award transfer or securitisation is contemplated, obtain local legal opinions on assignability and enforcement viability in relevant jurisdictions before proceeding.

V. Conclusion

November 2025 underscores a critical shift in the enforcement landscape for investor‑state arbitration. The refusal by the English Commercial Court to allow assignment of ICSID and ECT awards places a major constraint on the trade and securitisation of such awards. At the same time, the continued issuance of new awards and the persistent activity under ICSID confirm that treaty‑based arbitration remains a core feature of global investment law.

For investors, creditors, and sovereign states alike, the month signals that careful structuring, informed enforcement strategy, and rigorous compliance remain indispensable.

xxx