ICSID Tribunal Dismisses Banesco Claims Against Panama in $13.5 Million Dispute
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources. How we report.
TL;DR
- ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Panama in an arbitration initiated by Banesco.
- Banesco sought $13.5 million for alleged violations related to public works contracts.
- The tribunal found Panama did not breach its treaty obligations.
- Banesco was ordered to pay Panama $900,000 in legal fees.
Overview
On May 5, 2026, an ICSID tribunal dismissed all claims brought by Banesco Holding Latinoamérica S.A. and Banesco (Panama), S.A. against the Republic of Panama. Banesco had sought $13.5 million, alleging Panama breached protections under a bilateral investment treaty with Spain. The tribunal rejected the claims, finding no breach by Panama regarding public works contract disputes and ordered Banesco to pay significant costs.
What Happened
Banesco Holding Latinoamérica S.A. and Banesco (Panama), S.A. filed an ICSID arbitration against Panama in 2023.
The bank alleged that Panama violated the Spain-Panama bilateral investment treaty, particularly the fair and equitable treatment standard, by interfering with public works contracts and executing related bond guarantees.
Banesco claimed $13.5 million in damages, arguing Panama's actions impacted its commercial interests.
On May 5, 2026, the ICSID tribunal issued its award, ruling that Panama did not breach any treaty obligations and that Banesco had access to local legal remedies.
The tribunal dismissed all claims and ordered Banesco to pay $900,000 toward Panama's legal costs.
Context
The dispute centered on Panama's execution of bond guarantees issued by Banesco to secure public works contracts that were allegedly not fulfilled.
Banesco asserted that these actions violated protections under the Spain-Panama investment treaty, but the tribunal concluded such protections do not shield investors from normal commercial risks.
Panama's Ministry of Economy and Finance highlighted that the award clarifies the treaty's fair and equitable treatment standard does not guarantee investors against typical business risks.
Why It Matters
- The case reinforces that investment treaty protection does not cover standard commercial risk.
- It highlights the ICSID tribunal's approach to the fair and equitable treatment standard in public works contract disputes.
- The outcome may inform future banking and construction-related investment disputes involving state contracts.