Bacilio Amorrortu USA v The Republic of Peru - PCA Case No 2020-11 - Response to the Notice of Arbitration - 21 March 2020
1. In accordance with the Article 4 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the Parties' agreement, the Republic of Peru ("Respondent", "Peru" or the "Republic") submits this Response to Claimant's Notice of Arbitration (the "Response") filed by Mr. Bacilio Amorrortu ("Notice of Arbitration") on 13 February 2020.
I. RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION SET FORTH IN THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
2. Mr. Amorrortu's claim against Peru is frivolous. He asserts that Peru frustrated his legitimate expectation that he would obtain a contract from Perupetro to resume the oil drilling and extraction operations in two blocks in the Talara Basin in the Province of Talara, Piura Region, Peru. But not only has Mr. Amorrortu failed to identify any acts attributable to Peru that had such an effect, in fact he had no such right and / or legitimate expectations. The limited evidence upon which Mr. Amorrortu relies simply shows his desire to operate in the two oil blocks. His desires, however, never materialized into a right to obtain a contract from Perupetro under Peruvian law.
3. The reason why Mr. Amorrortu and his company, Baspetrol, did not have a right to obtain such a contract is simple: they did not meet the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations. Mr. Amorrortu's contention that he was the victim of an elaborate corruption scheme to benefit the company Graņa y Montero S.A. ("Graņa y Montero") is not supported by any of the evidence presented in the Notice of Arbitration, and has no basis.
4. The description of the claims in the Notice of Arbitration is based upon a wildly inaccurate portrayal of the facts and, as Peru will show if necessary, the actual facts show that there has been no breach of the Treaty and no entitlement to the relief requested.
5. But the tribunal that will be constituted to hear this case will not need to decide the merits of Mr. Amorrortu's claims since, as Peru will show in due course, Mr. Amorrortu cannot demonstrate that the case falls within the scope of the Treaty's provisions. There is no arbitration agreement between the Parties, and the dispute does not arise out of any contract, other legal instrument or relevant relationship between the Parties. Peru reserves its right to plead that the tribunal to be constituted lacks jurisdiction ratione volutatis, ratione personae, ratione materiae and ratione temporis.
6. For these reasons, Peru rejects Mr. Amorrortu's claims that it breached article 10.5 of United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (USPTPA).