Project Finance Arbitration Involving Japanese Banks
I. Structure of Project Finance Involving Japanese Banks
Japanese banks such as:
MUFG Bank
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation
Mizuho Bank
are major participants in:
Limited recourse project financing
Syndicated loans
Export credit-backed projects
Public–Private Partnerships (PPP)
Energy and infrastructure projects
They often co-finance with:
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI)
II. Why Arbitration Arises in Project Finance
Although loan agreements are often governed by English or New York law with court jurisdiction clauses, arbitration typically arises from:
1. Concession Agreements
Between host government and project company (SPV).
2. EPC Contracts
Engineering disputes affecting project viability.
3. Shareholder Agreements
Between sponsors and equity participants.
4. Political Risk / Investment Treaty Claims
Japanese banks or their sponsored SPVs invoking BIT protections.
III. Typical Legal Issues in Arbitration
Expropriation or unlawful termination of concession
Force majeure and change-in-law disputes
Political risk events
Security enforcement challenges
Sovereign immunity defenses
Intercreditor conflicts
Japanese banks often appear:
As direct claimants (rare but possible)
Through subrogation (via JBIC/NEXI)
As affected lenders in ICSID claims initiated by project sponsors
IV. Key Arbitration Frameworks Used
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
Japan is also a signatory to the:
New York Convention
V. Important Case Laws Involving Project Finance and Japanese Banks
Below are six significant arbitration and court cases relevant to project finance disputes involving Japanese banks or Japanese-backed project companies.
1. Salini v. Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4)
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. v. Morocco
Relevance:
Although not directly involving a Japanese bank, this case established the “Salini test” for defining an investment under ICSID — crucial when Japanese project lenders rely on BIT protection.
Legal Principle:
Four criteria for an investment:
Contribution
Duration
Risk
Contribution to host state development
Japanese lenders rely on this standard when structuring overseas project finance to ensure treaty protection.
2. Noble Ventures v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11)
Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania
Relevance:
Clarified when contractual breaches by states become treaty violations.
Importance for Japanese Banks:
If a government breaches concession or power purchase agreements affecting Japanese-financed projects, lenders may structure claims through treaty arbitration.
3. Siemens v. Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8)
Siemens A.G. v. Argentina
Relevance:
Concerned termination of a public infrastructure concession.
Importance:
Japanese banks heavily finance infrastructure projects in emerging markets. This case demonstrates:
Protection against arbitrary termination
Compensation standards
Legitimate expectations doctrine
4. BG Group plc v. Argentina (US Supreme Court, 2014)
BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina
Relevance:
Concerned BIT arbitration involving Argentina’s economic crisis.
Importance for Japanese Banks:
Clarified procedural preconditions in treaty arbitration.
Important where Japanese lenders participate in privatized utilities.
5. Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Company
Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Company
Relevance:
Concerned enforcement of arbitral awards in English courts.
Importance:
Japanese banks financing Russian energy projects studied this case carefully regarding:
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
Public policy challenges
6. Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation v. POSCO
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp. v. POSCO
Relevance:
Although primarily a commercial dispute, it demonstrates Japanese corporate recourse to ICC arbitration in international industrial disputes.
Importance:
Shows arbitration culture within Japanese conglomerates involved in project finance supply chains.
7. Tethyan Copper Company v. Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1)
Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Pakistan
Relevance:
Massive mining project dispute.
Importance:
Japanese banks often finance mining projects in South Asia and Africa. This case shows:
Damages calculation in project finance
Lost profits in long-term concession projects
Sovereign cancellation risk
VI. Sovereign Immunity and Enforcement Issues
Japanese banks must consider:
Waivers of sovereign immunity
Enforcement under the New York Convention
Asset tracing challenges
Political backlash risks
VII. Risk Mitigation Strategies Used by Japanese Banks
Political risk insurance via NEXI
JBIC co-financing
Offshore escrow structures
Stabilization clauses
Direct agreements with host governments
Step-in rights
VIII. Emerging Trends (2020–2025)
Rise in renewable energy arbitration
Sanctions-related disputes
ESG-related lender exposure
Supply chain force majeure claims
Increased use of Singapore and Hong Kong seats
IX. Conclusion
Project finance arbitration involving Japanese banks operates at the intersection of:
International investment law
Commercial arbitration
Sovereign risk
Structured finance
Although Japanese banks rarely appear as named claimants, they are often economically central to disputes involving:
Infrastructure
Energy
Mining
PPP projects
The jurisprudence from ICSID, ICC, LCIA, and national courts significantly influences how Japanese lenders structure:
Security packages
Governing law clauses
Treaty planning
Risk allocation frameworks
RELATED Blog
comments