Pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima (the "Municipality") hereby respectfully requests that this Court enter an order vacating the arbitral award dated May 11, 2020 (the "Award") that was rendered in favor of Rutas de Lima S.A.C. ("Rutas") and delivered to the parties on May 12, 2020, following an arbitration carried out under the Concession Contract for the design, construction, improvement, conservation, and operation and exploitation of the "Vías Nuevas de Lima" Project in Lima, Peru (the "Project"), which was signed by the parties on January 9, 2013 (the "Concession Contract").
The Arbitration Proceedings
On May 3, 2018, Rutas initiated the underlying arbitration, invoking the arbitration clause found at Clause 19.12 of the Concession Contract, which provided that disputes under the Concession Contract would be settled through arbitration. Id. ¶ 5, 152. Pursuant to the Concession Contract, the arbitration was conducted under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law of 2010 (the "UNCITRAL Rules"). Id. ¶ 7.
The arbitral tribunal (the "Tribunal") was appointed in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules, and consisted of three members: (1) Dr. Alexis Mourre, (2) Dr. Antonio Hierro Hernández-Mora, and (3) Dr. Elvira Martínez Coco. 2 The seat of the arbitration was Washington, D.C. Id. ¶ 11.
In the arbitration, Rutas claimed damages due to: (1) its inability to operate the New Chillón Toll Station and the Existing Chillón Toll Station as a result of the social protests, and (2) the Municipality's alleged failure, under Clauses 10.3 and 10.4 of the Concession Contract, to compensate Rutas in an amount equivalent to what Rutas would have been able to collect from these toll stations had they been operational. Id. ¶¶ 174, 380-381. Rutas requested approximately 140 million Peruvian soles in damages.
The Municipality raised defenses to Rutas' claims under the Concession Contract.
Principle among these defenses was that the Concession Contract was null and void, and the Municipality thus did not owe damages to Rutas under Clauses 10.3 and 10.4 of the Concession Contract. Id. ¶¶ 266; 274-276; 293-296. The Municipality argued that the Concession Contract was null and void for two principal reasons. First, the Concession Contract, and certain of its modifications, including the Bankability Addendum, had been obtained through acts of corruption by Rutas. Id. ¶¶ 293-306. Second, neither the Concession Contract, nor its modifications, including the Bankability Addendum, had been submitted to the Ministry for prior approval, in contravention of Peruvian law. Id. ¶¶ 266-68.