Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow is the venue for the 2023 Global Rounds of the Foreign Direct Investment Moot.
The Global Rounds of the Foreign Direct Investment Moot [“FDI”] 2023 kicked off on 2 November at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. The event will unfold over the next three days, with the Final Rounds and Closing Ceremony set to happen on 5 November. This is the first time that the moot is being organised in Asia.
FDI is a prestigious annual international competition on the subject matter of Investor-State Arbitration, organised by esteemed institutions such as the Center for International Legal Studies (CILS), Pepperdine, DIS, King’s College London, etc., with Christian Campbell and Christopher Gibson as Directors of the moot.
This hybrid edition sees the attendance of 50 teams, 8 from India and 42 from various countries across the globe, bringing the total number of participants to over 200. The competition is also honoured by the presence of 40 distinguished arbitrators, who are experts in their field and have generously devoted their time to evaluate the rounds and offer valuable feedback to participants.
The event is punctuated with several social events and mixers, setting the stage for interactions among participants and arbitrators, engaging in an exchange of culture, experiences, and practices from their home countries.
DAY 1 | Thursday, 2 November 2023
9:00 AM IST: Teams Sign-in
After welcoming international guests with a ceremonial “tilak” on the forehead, the competition Participants assembled for Registrations and received their Stationery Kits sponsored by EBC-SCC before heading to their respective court rooms for the Group Phase Hearings Scheduled for the day.
9:00 AM – 11:15 AM IST | 11:30 AM – 1:45 PM IST | 2:00 PM – 4:15 PM IST | 4:30 PM – 6:45 PM IST: Group Phase Hearings
Teams engaged in competitive pleadings on the Problem Case over the course of 4 hearing sessions.
7:15 PM – 7:55 PM IST: Opening Reception
Students, participants, and arbitrators assembled in the Seminar Hall for The Opening Reception on the first day of the event for the official inauguration of this year’s edition of the moot.
The stage was graced by a star-studded panel seating Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Advocate on Record at the Supreme Court of India, who is also an alumnus of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University and has generously undertaken to felicitate best performing teams and participants with a prize pool aggregating to 3000 USD across multiple categories; Manuela Ines Wedam, Events Manager at CILS and the COO of FDI Moot; Christian Campbell, Managing Director at CILS and the Director of FDI Moot; Dr. Sanjay Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University; Dr. Visalakshi Vegesna, Professor at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University and Chairperson of the Moot Court Committee; and Dr. Prasenjit Kundu, Assistant Professor at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University and Faculty Coordinator of the Moot Court Committee.
The Opening Reception started with an Equity Briefing by the student Organising Committee, where participants were urged to remain sensitive to the ethnicity, religion, culture, and gender identities of the people around them. This was done with the objective of making the event a safe and equitable space for everyone in attendance.
The Welcome Address was delivered by Dr. Singh, who shared with the gathering that the moot comes at a crucial time, days after the new FDI policy was announced by the host state of Uttar Pradesh and during the year of India’s G20 presidency, an all-time high for foreign investments in India. He applauded the efforts and dedication of alumni Abhikalp Singh and Arunima Athavale in fetching the University a chance to host teams and arbitrators for the moot, and Dr. Vegesna and Dr. Kundu for their contribution in facilitating the organisation of an event of this stature.
Mr. Campbell next talked to the audience about the unique position of Asia as a source of foreign investment. He stated that while it was the first time the moot is being organised in Asia, he hopes that several future editions see the potential of Asian countries as venue for the Global Rounds, with a nod to the heart-warming hospitality experienced by him.
Finally, Dr. Kundu delivered the Endnote wherein he spoke about the development of Arbitration Law in India and abroad, and evolution of principles surrounding the same. He also talked about the transformation of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Foreign Arbitral Awards in India over the years. He concluded by congratulating and welcoming teams and arbitrators who has flown in from various parts of the world to be a part of the moot.
This marked the wrapping up of the Opening Reception, post which participants and arbitrators were directed to the Vice Chancellor’s lawn for High Tea and refreshments from the many stalls set up by local brands.
DAY 2 | Friday, 3 November 2023
9:00 AM – 11:15 AM IST | 11:30 AM – 1:45 PM IST | 2:00 PM – 4:15 PM IST | 4:30 PM – 6:45 PM IST- Group Phase Hearings
Teams engaged in competitive pleadings on the Problem Case over the course of 4 hearing sessions.
Second day of the event ended with leaving participants and arbitrators with a free evening to explore the City of Nawabs and its tasteful offerings!
DAY 3 | Saturday, 4 November 2023
9:00 AM – 11:15 AM IST | 11:30 AM – 1:45 PM IST- Group Phase Hearings
Teams engaged in competitive pleadings on the Problem Case over the course of 2 hearing sessions.
2:00 PM – 3:30 PM IST- Round-table Conference on “ISDS in the 21st century: Adapting to Changing Dynamics”
As part of the event, the Seminar Committee of RMLNLU organised an insightful round table discussing contemporary developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), also the subject-matter of the moot. The session saw attendance of participants, students, and faculty members.
The stage was graced by an esteemed panel comprising Steven P. Finizio, Partner at WilmerHale; Mrinal Jain, Managing Director at the Secretariat; and Shwetha Bidhuri, Director and Head of SIAC. Discussions were moderated by Chitra Rentala, Partner at Trilegal; Niyati Gandhi, Principal Associate at SAM; and Anubhab Sarkar, Founding Partner at Triumvir Law.
3:45 PM IST – 4:00 PM IST- Announcement of Teams advancing to Round of 16
After tabulation of results from multiple rigorous rounds of Group Phase Hearings held over 3 days, results were announced for teams who will be advancing to the next stage of the competition (Round of 16).
Team aliases of the 12 teams set to compete in in-person sessions of the Round of 16 were announced by Christian Campbell and Abhikalp Pratap Singh, (in alphabetical order):
- Team Aranguren
- Team Barkett
- Team Broms
- Team Brownlie
- Team Campos
- Team Cot
- Team Crawford
- Team Evensen
- Team Fabela
- Team Ferrer
- Team Roucounas
- Team Salam
Names of the 4 remaining teams who will be partaking in virtual hearings were not announced to the gathering. Teams were personally informed of the results.
A round of congratulations and best wishes to all participants followed.
4:30 PM – 6:45 PM IST- Pleadings: Round of 16
Advancing Teams engaged in rigorous pleadings before presiding arbitrators for winning their respective rooms and moving on to Quarter Finals, scheduled to be held the next day.
7:00 PM – 8:30 PM IST- Cultural Programme
Participants, arbitrators, and students of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow assembled in the Vice Chancellor’s Lawn to partake in an extraordinary celebratory evening, studded with performances from students at the host university.
The festivities served as a much-needed refresher from the anticipation of competition lining the air.
Result:
Quarter-Finals will be contested among the following teams:
- Team Aranguren
- Team Campos
- Team Crawford
- Team Currim
- Team Fabela
- Team Roucounas
- Team Ruda
- Team Shahabuddeen
DAY 4 | Saturday, 5 November 2023
10:00 AM – 12:15 PM IST- Quarter Final Rounds
Court Room 1: Team Roucounas vs Team Currim
Pleadings were held in hybrid mode, with the Respondents attending the hearing online through Zoom. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
The Respondent Speaker made their contentions on the issues of procedural compliance and Tribunal’s jurisdiction, placing reliance on the lawyers’ moral code of conduct for their action to cease representation. This was countered with a question by the Members of the Tribunal seeking a response on how the Respondent balance their moral code with their duty towards their client.
Through the course of pleadings, the speaker was asked questions about the reason for delay in placing the request for resignation after receiving instructions from the Bar Association, and how they propose to control the jeopardy to the client’s interests in that time period. They further responded to the Tribunal’s questions regarding confirmation of fabrication allegations and sufficiency of due diligence standards.
This was followed by the Claimant Speaker who highlighted the repercussions of the Respondents’ request, especially when they are taken at a short notice from the date of oral hearings and in the absence of any substitute counsel to represent the Claimants. To the Tribunal’s question about the actions of their client and the resultant jeopardy to human rights, they responded that the cause supported by the Respondents will receive no immediate substantive benefit from the resignation. They went on to cite the lawyers’ moral code, which mandates that lawyers act independently and without regard to personal interests.
The pleaders and Members of the Tribunal then engaged in a discussion on what remedies the Claimants are looking for, and what measures would be deemed appropriate by them. This was followed by a back-and-forth on the Claimants’ contention that the illegality in investment bars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, involving principles of estoppel, proportionality, and due diligence. This was followed by the first round of responsive speeches.
The Claimants speaker then advanced their case on merits, arguing on the subject of expropriation and valuation. It was their contention that, with due regard to principles of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination- the measures undertaken by State amounted to permanent expropriation. They then argued about the tweet made by the account of the Head of Trade Department, and claimed that the same was seen by investors as a statement made by the State. There was a discussion with the Tribunal about whether the tweet can be said to be made in the personal or professional capacity of the official.
The Respondents speaker, in their contentions, claimed that there has been no violation as the actions were a valid exercise of duty and authority of the State. Upon being asked what investigative measures had been undertaken by them before imposing the sanctions, they pointed the Members of the Tribunal to various actions/ omissions of the Claimants. The went on to justify the uniqueness of their actions against Albia alone, and finally argued on when the valuation should have been made. This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
Post deliberation, the Tribunal returned with a verdict in favour of Claimants.
Court Room 2: Team Fabela vs Team Crawford
Pleadings were held in physical mode, with all teams and Members of the Tribunal present in the room. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
Respondent Speaker started their contentions by arguing that their resignation is lawful as it is based on the basic principles of rights of lawyers and do not violate fair human law precedents. In a round of questions, jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal were claimed under Article 44. This was followed by the Tribunal’s questions on evidence of fabrication and a discussion of whether State’s acts of deriving benefits from a contract invoke estoppel.
Claimant Speaker then challenged the grounds of the Respondents’ resignation, stating that the same constitutes manifest departure from the internationally accepted rules of conduct. They also contended that such resignation would be prejudicial to justice, to which they were asked to justify how the harm caused to their client was more than the harm caused by human rights violations committed as a result of the actions of said client. They were finally asked if the remedy of compensation in the face of resignation of Respondents would be acceptable to them. Post concluding submissions on jurisdiction by the speaker, comprising submissions on illegality of investment and principles of BIT, the the first round of responsive speeches were made.
Claimant speaker then addressed the Tribunal on the issue of merit, contending that the Sanctions Law is violative of principles of BIT, which disallows direct and indirect expropriation. Expropriation was proved by application of the test of permanence and substantial deprivation. This was followed by pleadings on discrimination and evidence of connection between Claimants and the incidents of violence. Final arguments were made the issue of valuation date.
Respondent Speaker then made their submissions on the legitimacy of Sanctions Law and the sanction imposed, claiming that the measure was temporary and did not constitute permanent expropriation. They then engaged with the Tribunal on questions of proportionality an legitimacy of sanctions. This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
Post deliberation, the Tribunal returned with a verdict in favour of Respondents.
Court Room 3: Team Shahabuddeen vs Team Aranguran
Pleadings were held in physical mode, with all teams and Members of the Tribunal present in the room. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
Respondent speaker started their submissions with pointing out the state of human rights citing as example a law introduced by the State that barred women from participating in the legal field. They argued the Claimant’s illegal investment and non-fulfillment of the due diligence standard, and were questioned briefly on the purpose of the Dual Use Regulations as well as the creation of an estoppel due to their conduct.
Claimant Speaker asserted firstly that that the Tribunal had jurisdiction in the present dispute and secondly, that the respondent’s request for resignation would be prejudicial to the Claimant’s interests. They emphasized that a client’s interests assume supremacy for a lawyer and that the resignation would unnecessarily delay previously postponed arbitration proceedings. Upon being asked if the Claimants would be amenable to modifying the claim for damages, to which the counsel replied in the negative, stressing that their primary interest lay in prompt resolution of the dispute. This was followed by the first round of responsive speeches.
Claimant Speaker then extended their case by submitting firstly that the Sanctions Law enacted by the Respondents violated Article 5 of the BIT, and secondly that the Claimant was entitled to compensation. The counsel relied on the sole effects doctrine to submit that the effects of the measures should be given primacy over the government’s intent in enacting these measures. When questioned on whether the ambit of interference with a sovereign state’s discretion by the Tribunal was being stretched too far, the counsel referred to the margin of appreciation discussed in previous cases. Following this, the counsel concluded by asserting that the validation date of 20th November should be utilised to ascertain compensation.
Respondent Speaker started the closing half of their case by asserting that BIT was not violated because the actions undertaken were essential for the public good. He stressed that asset depreciation was not attributable to the Respondents. The line of questioning was then targeted towards the controversial tweet by Bail Organa, wherein Arbitrators and the pleader discussed to draw a causal link between the tweet and the panic in the market.
Pleadings then moved on to the obligation of the Respondents in enacting the Sanctions Law to ensure internal peace and security, and balancing the same against investor rights. Post discussion about the Claimant’s compliance with the Dual Use Regulations, the speaker concluded submissions by asserting that the Claimants could not claim compensation as that would amount to unjust enrichment. This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
Post deliberation, the Tribunal returned with a verdict in favour of Respondents.
Court Room 4: Team Ruda vs Team Campos
Pleadings were held in hybrid mode, with the Claimants attending hearing online. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
Respondent Speaker began arguments with the common general principle regarding “good cause”. Further discussions with the Tribunal occur on the concepts of insufficiency of due diligence, legality of investment, and applicability of rules of estoppel. They are questioned by the Tribunal to explain the delay in taking action on the issue.
Claimant Speaker began by discussing the role of a lawyer, over the general humanitarian purpose. They were questioned on balancing of good cause with client’s interests. They showed how the said conduct also went against the ideals of justice. They highlighted how changing counsels is a tedious and time-taking process, and there is questioning on the subject by the Tribunal. Final submissions were made on how jurisdiction of the Tribunal applied to the case at hand, and the speaker elaborated on how the amount of due diligence undertaken by them, by the in-house counsel and the Respondent law firm, was sufficient in the current case. This was followed by the first round of responsive speeches.
The Claimants advance their case by submitting that the Respondent, by enacting the Sanctions Law in question, expropriated the Claimant’s assets, and on that basis they claimed the law to be discriminatory. They were questioned by the Tribunal to justify their assertion of the expropriation to be ‘permanent’. They concluded by claiming that the measure is disproportionate and unnecessary.
Respondent speaker advances their case by submitting that the Respondents’ action does not amount to expropriation. They went on to say that even if it were so, they are well within their right to undertake it. They were questioned by the Tribunal about the permanence or temporariness of their actions, and to justify whether the Claimants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their stance. They were also called upon to defend the claims of discrimination. They proceeded to justify the proportionality of measures, and concluded their submissions by contending that the date of valuation should be taken as 24 December. This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
Post deliberation, the Tribunal returned with a verdict in favour of Respondents.
Result:
The following teams have advanced to the Semi-Final Rounds:
- Team Aranguren
- Team Campos
- Team Crawford
- Team Roucounas
12:30 PM – 2:30 PM IST- Semi Final Rounds
Court Room 1: Team Campos vs Team Roucounas
Pleadings were held in hybrid mode, with the Arbitrators attending the hearing online through Zoom. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
The Respondent speaker delved upon the right and the cause to withdraw. They referenced local bar association guidelines and mentioned that although these rules are not binding; there exists a lacuna, so these rules assume relevance. The tribunal as them as to what is the right stage to refuse representation. Respondents answered the same as well as enlightened the tribunal with how the resignation will not be prejudicial to the interests of either party. They further argued that the inception of investment was illegal, that it was not in accordance with law, that there was a but there was a failure to comply with the duty of due diligence.
Claimant speaker then showed the prejudice suffered by them. They argued how the Respondents were the last law firm that may represent the party. There was also a delay in proceedings being initiated from the side of Respondents. Claimant then went on to show that the actions of the Respondents were disproportionate. The Tribunal then engaged with the pleader on their duties under law, and the extent to which the same were fulfilled.
This was followed by the first round of responsive speeches.
Claimant speaker then addressed the Tribunal on the issue of merit, contending that the Sanctions Law is violative of principles of BIT. Upon the Tribunal’s question on how the government can be forced to pay compensation for valuation crash, they analysed the precise reason for the drop in stock prices. They went on to question Articles 4 and 6 of the BIT Regulations as a valid form of defence, which was followed by questioning on the evidence of connection between Claimants and the incidents of violence. Final arguments were made on the issue of valuation date.
Respondent speaker then made their submission that the threshold of proportionality is not met. They argued that it is impossible to regulate dual use products and track them when they are outside the jurisdiction. Sanctions law was necessary to save human life and also enunciated why the targeting of origin of such products was important. They submitted that their action does not amount to expropriation as, for creeping expropriation, there should exist a scheme to target investors but here the tweet is a general statement and merely a threat to expropriation.
They asserted that the Claimants cannot rely on the valuation date before risks like market speculation and media speculation even started. Respondents submitted that the sale price on 24th December is the accurate fair market value. The tweet, being not illegal, does not give rise to any compensation. Even if there was expropriation, the breach only occurred after the sanctions were imposed on 31st December. So, compensation should be paid on and prior to that date.
This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
Post deliberation, the Tribunal returned with a verdict in favour of Respondents.
Court Room 2: Team Aranguren vs Team Crawford
Pleadings were held in physical mode, with all teams and Members of the Tribunal present in the room. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
Respondent speaker started their contentions by arguing that their resignation is lawful as it is based on the basic principles of rights of lawyers and do not violate fair human law precedents. Questions were raised by the Tribunal on whether a rightful application of these fair human law precedents was being carried out since the documents were voluminous and time-consuming. Furthermore, the Tribunal enquired about the consequences of the scenario in which there was no representation given from the side of claimants i.e., whether the party will go unrepresented. The speaker concluded by asserting that the Claimants have failed to carry out adequate due diligence.
Claimants started by arguing that the present occasion was not a good cause of withdrawal and that the factors involved are broad and external, outside of the principles as enunciated in relevant international law. They further argued that the respondents had not affirmed to their professional duties. While making arguments, the Claimants were questioned by the Tribunal whether they are equating moral and ethical values’ violations with human rights violations. They were further questioned on whether the Tribunal can compel a counsel to represent a party; what the Dual Use Regulations are as are being argued; and whether the associates hired by the claimants were local or international.
This was followed by the first round of responsive speeches.
The Claimants speaker then addressed the issue of merit. They argued that the present occasion is not a case of national interest as has been alleged by the Respondents. They then contended that the Sanctions Law is violative of principles of BIT, which disallows direct and indirect expropriation. This was followed by pleadings on discrimination and evidence of connection between Claimants and the incidents of violence. Concluding submissions were made on the issue of valuation date.
The Respondent speaker then extended their case by submitting that the Respondents’ action does not amount to expropriation. They were questioned by the Tribunal about the permanence or temporariness of their actions, and to justify whether the Claimants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their stance. They proceeded to justify the proportionality of measures and closed their submissions by contending that the date of valuation should be taken as 24 December.
This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
Post deliberation, the Tribunal returned with a verdict in favour of Claimants.
Court Rooms 3 and 4: Hearings for 5th and 7th places
Quarter-finalist teams that did not advance engaged in pleadings for the 5th and 7th place.
Result:
The Final spar will take place between Team Aranguren and Team Roucounas.
3:15 PM – 5:15 PM IST- Final Round
Moot Court Hall- Team Roucounas vs Team Aranguren
Pleadings were held in physical mode, with all teams and Members of the Tribunal present in the room. The hearing was spectated by several other participants, arbitrators, and students of the host university. By mutual agreement, issues and speaking order was decided as such: Respondents spoke on procedural issues, post which Claimants spoke on the same. This was followed by Claimants speaking on merits and Respondents making their contentions on the same after. Substantive pleadings were followed by Rebuttals and Surrebuttals post each set.
Respondent speaker started with highlighting parts of the factual matrix, which showed the state of law and governance in the country, to which they were asked if they were intentionally criticizing the State, that is their client. They were also asked why their primary reliance was based on Bar Association Rules and not international principles. The speaker went on to state that, with their beliefs, they will not be able to represent the Claimants with conviction, to which they were asked if representing with conviction is synonymous with representing effectively.
They were repeatedly called upon to address the intent for their actions- good cause or actions of peers. They were also extensively questioned of why the Tribunal should grant their request and allow a voluntary choice that will result in substantial disadvantage to the Claimants. They then addressed the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding the expropriation. They were also asked the reason for altering their reliance from Article 9 to Article 1, and the logic and law behind placing all the burden for due diligence on investors.
Claimant speaker started by contextualising the timing and consequences of the Respondents’ request for resignation on the client, to which they were asked if the Tribunal had the power to enforce an order on a non-party to the BIT, and whether this power also extended to disqualifying advocates for their actions or bad legal strategy. They explained the prejudice to their client by highlighting the freezing of assets and reputational losses. They reiterated the duty of lawyers to act independently, irrespective of personal interests or beliefs.
They went on to address the principle of estoppel invoked by knowledge of illegality of investment and stated that, in the absence of case laws, the Tribunal must rely on the objective of BIT, which is stated in the Preamble as promotion of favourable conditions between parties.
This was followed by the first round of responsive speeches.
Claimant speaker addressed the issue of merit, by speaking on expropriation and valuation. They stated that the Sanctions Law is violative of the principles of expropriation as given in the BIT, because the actions amounted to indirect expropriation which was both permanent and substantially consequential; moreover, it could not be subsumed under the exceptions of Articles 4, 6 or 8.
They established effect rather than intent as the standard for judging actions, and went on to justify their claims of the Respondents’ actions as discriminatory. They were questioned to explain the balancing of State’s ability to take actions against parties it deemed necessary in public interest. They concluded submissions by speaking on Bail Organa’s controversial tweet, stating that exercise of apparent State authority is also attributed to State and therefore, the date of valuation of damages should be taken as one where market conditions had seen the impact of this exercise.
Respondent speaker set the context for their speech as “international peace” concerns of Martineek, which the Tribunal remarked was an island nation and sought further clarifications on why it would be impacted by violence in a far-off land. They were then called on to state the objective of State behind its action, which was stated in the Parliament meeting as “to save the economy”, and if the Tribunal had power to assess this intent. They were questioned to explain the distinction between principal business and subsidiary business.
They were questioned how international peace was achieved when Claimants were not allowed to sell their assets even to countries outside of Albania or to other people in Martinek, which were the only two conditions stipulated by law. They then addressed questions on the impact of the controversial tweet on market conditions, its attributability to State and the resultant impact on date of valuation or, as the speaker called it, compensation. They concluded submissions by answering the final question of it the Tribunal was empowered the move the date of valuation/ compensation up or down for it to not coincide with the date of expropriation.
This was followed by the final round of Rebuttal and Surrebuttal.
The Tribunal then proceeded to deliberate on results while participants and audience proceeded to the Seminar Hall for the Valedictory and Closing Ceremony.
Court Room 2: Hearings for 3rd place
While the two finalists sparred at Finals, Semi-finalist teams that did not advance engaged in pleadings for the 3rd place.
5:30 PM – 6:30 PM IST- Closing Ceremony
Participants, students, faculty, and arbitrators assembled in the Seminar Hall for the Closing Ceremony. The event was graced by the presence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, sitting judge at the Supreme Court of India and Chief Guest for the ceremony.
The stage was adorned with a panel of Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Dr. Visalakshi Vegesna, Dr. Sanjay Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, and Sharmistha Chakrabarti. After a round of felicitation of dignitaries by members of the University, Dr. Sanjay Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, delivered a Welcome Address.
The gathering was then addressed by Christian Campbell, Managing Director at CILS and Director of the FDI Moot, who congratulated participants for all the hard work and efforts put in by them and praised the hospitality he received in India.
The audience was then addressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, who said that he saw the enthusiastic participation and commendable work of young lawyers at the moot as a message of hope for the future of the world. He then spoke about the state of Arbitration Law and practice in India, and sought collective effort to improve the same even further. He also shared with the crowd how even various Holy texts also talked about ADR and concluded by congratulating everyone who was a part of the moot.
This was followed by announcement of prizes- comprising certificates, medals, and cash awards- in various team as well as individual categories. Team Roucounas, representing NALSAR University of Law, was adjudged as Winners of the 2023 edition of the FDI Moot by the esteemed Finals Arbitrators panel comprising Vera Bykova, Dipen Sabharwal, and Steven Finizio.
With the announcement of Germany as the venue of the 2024 FDI Moot, Christian Campbell declared the 2023 edition concluded! Participants, arbitrators, and members of the Organising Committee headed over to the Vice Chancellor’s lawn for dinner and interactions.
