Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere, but there...

Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere, but there is a bit of misinformation on this thread about what these proceedings mean.

Investor-State arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism whereby a foreign investor can bring proceedings directly against a State for its treatment of the investor's investment. For example, where the company has been nationalised and the investment has been expropriated. These proceedings often arise under instruments such as bilateral investment treaties or multi-party investment agreements. It is not currently clear what instrument AVZ & Co are relying on.

There are currently several other investor-State arbitrations by Australian mining companies against African countries (among other) on foot. If you are interested in seeing how some of those claims are progressing - look for information on Sundance Resources and Equatorial Resources - both who have commenced arbitrations against the Republic of Congo - or Indiana Resources, who claimed against Tanzania.

Where the misinformation lies is in any suggestion that by filing with ICSID, that the World Bank and the US are now involved. ICSID are one of several institutions that help manage and facilitate investor-State claims. It is not, for example, an arm of the US government. Rather, it is governed by the Administrative Council, on which each Member State has a representative.

Generally, investor-State arbitration is slow and very expensive, with legal fees comfortably in the millions - if not tens of millions (the average cost is US$13m). However, the compensation awarded is also significant. A study showed the average compensation awarded is US$437.5 but there have been awards of many billions in the past.

As a past holder who has an interest in investor-State arbitration and has been watching recent events closely, wishing holders all the best.