Corporate law in advanced domestic legal systems on the one hand, and typical treaties for the protection of foreign investment on the other hand, treat claims for damages by company shareholders differently. Advanced domestic systems generally bar shareholders from claiming for reflective loss? loss that arises from injury to "their" company (such as a decline in the value of shares). The claim for the loss belongs to the injured company and not to its shareholders. In contrast, shareholder claims for reflective loss have been widely permitted under typical investment treaties over the last 10 years. Ongoing OECD-hosted inter-governmental dialogue on investment law is considering whether there are policy reasons justifying the different approaches to shareholder claims for reflective loss. This paper examines shareholder claims for reflective loss under investment treaties in light of comparative analysis of advanced systems of corporate law. The paper considers the impact of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss on key characteristics of the business corporation. The paper also explores possible responses by different categories of investors to the availability of shareholder claims for reflective loss under investment treaties.

Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders? reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to "their" company, typically a loss in value of the shares; it is generally contrasted with direct injury to shareholder rights, such as interference with shareholder voting rights.) This paper considers the consistency issues raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. The paper first compares the approach to shareholder claims in ISDS with advanced systems of national corporate law (and other international law). ISDS arbitrators have consistently found that shareholders can claim individually for reflective loss in ISDS under typical BITs. This can be seen as a success story from the point of view of consistency of legal interpretation and improves investor protection for potential claimant shareholders in many cases. In contrast, however, advanced national systems and international law generally apply what has been called a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Second, the paper analyses the policy issues relating to consistency that are raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. National and international law barring shareholder claims for reflective loss is often explicitly driven by policy considerations relating to consistency, predictability, avoidance of double recovery and judicial economy. Limiting recovery to the company is seen as both more efficient and fairer to all interested parties. In contrast, ISDS tribunals and commentators have generally given limited consideration to the policy consequences of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss. The third part of the paper addresses the issue of company recovery (including two different existing systems which expand the ability of foreign-controlled companies to recover in ISDS) and its relevance to shareholder claims for reflective loss. The paper also contains a series of questions for discussion and has been discussed by governments participating in an OECD-hosted investment roundtable.

Advanced systems of domestic corporate law generally apply a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Shareholder claims are permitted for direct injury to shareholder rights (such as voting rights). But shareholders generally cannot bring claims for reflective loss incurred as a result of injury to "their" company (such as loss in value of shares). Only the directly-injured company can claim. In contrast, shareholder claims for reflective loss have consistently been permitted under typical bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in recent years. This paper analyses investment treaty provisions relating to shareholder claims. It addresses (i) treaty regimes for shareholder recovery and company recovery of damages, including their consequences for investor protection and government liability; (ii) the interaction of reflective loss claims with treaty provisions that seek to limit multiple claims; and (iii) treaty provisions applicable to government objections to shareholder claims for reflective loss.

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of 'investment' in investment agreements that often include 'shares', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

This book studies shareholders' claims for reflective loss and explains why they are justified in international investment law.