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.

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.

Scholarly debate on the legitimacy crisis of investment dispute resolution has focused on the ability of multinational corporations to interfere with the state's right to regulate by challenging government measures in investor-state arbitration. Prior work has addressed the hybrid public-private nature of investment treaties that allow foreign investors to sue sovereign states and emphasized the role of multinational corporations in international lawmaking. The academic discourse misses entirely the fact that international investment law drastically impacts relationships within the corporation (between the shareholders, the management, and the board of directors) and alters the expectations about the corporation as a standard-form legal entity. Remarkably, international investment law allows shareholders to bring in arbitration claims for damages for “reflective loss” -- that is, loss incurred by shareholders indirectly as a result of injury to their company. Shareholders can bring these claims without consulting with the company's management and irrespective of any claims by the corporation. Thus, inherent in investment arbitration is the ability of individual shareholders to make decisions affecting the company and to benefit at the expense of the corporation, its creditors, and other stakeholders.Drawing on case studies, this Article seeks to surface the extent of the impact of shareholder claims for reflective loss on corporate law and governance -- the rules, structure, and processes of the management and control within the corporation. Having established the distortive impact of shareholder claims on the corporate legal entity, the Article further explores the ways to address the systemic problem of reflective loss claims. It makes a normative argument: in view of the policy goals of foreign investor protection, shareholder claims for reflective loss should be permitted in international investment law, but only in limited circumstances to curtail the disruption of corporate governance and to reduce the social costs of litigation. The Article concludes by offering a novel private ordering solution to the problem of reflective loss claims. It argues that the corporate distortion problem is best addressed at the level of individual corporations through targeted provisions in corporate charters and bylaws waiving the right of shareholders to bring reflective loss claims in investment arbitration.

"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." --

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.

This book is a codification of the principles and rules relating to the prosecution of investment claims.

Damages and other forms of redress are the object of nearly every international investment dispute. Given the financial stakes in these cases, compensation is a key concern for both foreign investors and States. The increasingly large sums awarded and the growing complexity of claims call for a renewed analysis of legal and valuation concepts related to damages. Contemporary and Emerging Issues on the Law of Damages and Valuation in International Investment Arbitration, edited by Christina L. Beharry, examines a broad range of damages topics, building on basic principles and surveying current developments to identify trends in the jurisprudence. A central contribution of this book is its exploration of cutting-edge issues dominating a new generation of investment awards and the interconnectedness of damages with other areas of international investment law. This volume brings together leading practitioners, experts, and academics with extensive experience working on issues related to the law of damages and the quantification of compensation. Readers are provided with a deeper understanding of legal and valuation principles that are often the source of intense debate in international investment cases.