Jurisdiction — Dispute — Expropriation — Whether jurisdiction under the BIT was limited to the determination of the amount or method of payment of the compensation due for expropriation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine that an expropriation had occurred — Whether there was a dispute between the parties concerning the existence of an expropriation — Whether the claimants had to resort to diplomatic protection or municipal courts to establish that an expropriation had occurred

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Dispute — Interpretation — Whether investors could invoke the broader dispute resolution clauses of other BITs by virtue of most-favoured-nation treatment — Whether access to international arbitration fell within the scope of most-favoured-nation treatment

Interpretation — Intention — Evidence — Object and purpose — VCLT, Article 31 — Whether there was evidence that the parties to the BIT intended to exclude the determination of expropriation from jurisdiction — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT would be frustrated by excluding from jurisdiction the determination of expropriation

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Legal personality — Whether investment vehicles that lacked legal personality under municipal law satisfied the meaning of investor under the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — Depository receipts — Territory — Whether depository receipts constituted an investment under the BIT — Whether depository receipts were an investment made in the territory of the State

Admissibility — Notice — Whether the claimants failed to give adequate notice — Whether the State was barred from raising a belated objection on the adequacy of notice during the proceeding

Admissibility — Abuse of process — Third-party funding — Double recovery — Whether the claimants had engaged in an abuse of process because their claims were funded by a third party — Whether there was any risk of double recovery from arbitrations arising from the same measures

Expropriation — Taxation — Judicial act — Whether tax levies were arbitrary or discriminatory — Whether the State had prevented a company from honouring its disputed tax debt — Whether tax delinquency was an excuse for seizing assets and transferring them to State-owned entities

Remedies — Damages — Standard of compensation — Valuation date — Whether compensation should cover the claimants’ proportionate share of an expropriated entity’s market value — Whether compensation had to be assessed at the time when an expropriated entity was removed from the register of companies or at an earlier date — Whether the value of the investment could be determined by the price of shares as they would have been traded on the stock market — Whether the date proposed by the claimants as the date of the last reliable stock price was acceptable — Whether a reduction was warranted because the claimants had speculated in distressed stock

Costs — Third-party funding — Whether the allocation of costs was affected by the claimants’ funding by a third party — Whether the State’s failure to make advance payments affected the allocation of costs