The Paris International Arbitration Newsletter – November 2026

Welcome to our November update, focused on bringing you closer to the pulse of arbitration in Paris. In this edition, we have curated the key arbitration points that we believe matter to you:

• Latest French arbitration case law: Can a third-party funder enforce an arbitral award directly against a State?
• Regional highlights: ICSID's record caseload – what are the outcomes for investors?
• Practical tips: Five things to consider when settling an ongoing arbitration
• Sectorial news: Arbitration and ports
• By the way: Addleshaw Goddard at the European In-House Litigation Summit

Enjoy the read! Please do get in touch if you have any feedback or questions.

Ioana Knoll-Tudor, Co-Head of the International Arbitration Practice

LATEST FRENCH ARBITRATION CASE LAW – Can a Third-Party Funder Enforce an Arbitral Award Directly Against a State?

The Paris Tribunal Judiciaire addressed this question in a decision of 5 October 2026 concerning the enforcement of an ICC award against Cameroon.

Projet Pilote Garoubé obtained an ICC award against Cameroon in 2021 for €17.88 million plus interest and costs. During the arbitration, Garoubé entered into a funding agreement with CFS and granted CFS a pledge over its claim against Cameroon as security. Following Garoubé’s default, CFS enforced the pledge and later obtained authorisation to attach receivables belonging to Cameroon in France. Cameroon challenged the attachment, arguing in particular that CFS was neither the beneficiary of the award nor the holder of an enforceable title against it.

The question was whether enforcing the pledge gave the funder the right not merely to receive payment, but to pursue compulsory enforcement of an award rendered in favour of the funded party.

Relying on Articles 2363 and 2365 of the French Civil Code, the Tribunal ruled that once the pledge has been notified to the debtor of the pledged claim (Cameroon), the secured creditor (CFS) has the exclusive right to payment. Upon default, the secured creditor may also be attributed the claim itself, together with all rights attached to it, including the right to enforce it. Here, the pledge agreement provided that, upon default, CFS could recover the pledged claims directly from the debtor and that Garoubé would no longer be entitled to do so. The Tribunal therefore held that CFS had been attributed the claim and could pursue recovery against Cameroon. It also confirmed CFS's standing to pursue compulsory enforcement of the ICC award, particularly in light of a 2025 judgment that had separately ordered the transfer to CFS of all of Garoubé's rights, titles and interests relating to the arbitration.

Takeaway? A third-party funder was able to step into the award creditor’s shoes and enforce the award itself against a State. Where a funder holds a pledge over the funded party's claim and validly enforces it, the funder may pursue enforcement of the award in its own right. Third-party funding can therefore affect not only the economics of an arbitration, but also who is legally entitled to enforce the resulting award.

Read my analysis of the Paris Tribunal Judiciaire’s decision here >

REGIONAL HIGHLIGHTS – ICSID’s Record Caseload: What Are the Outcomes for Investors?

ICSID has published its caseload statistics for fiscal year 2026 (1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026), followed by its 2026 Annual Report. The headline is a new record, but the detail is just as instructive for investors and States.

• Record activity. ICSID administered 363 cases, its highest ever in a fiscal year (up from 347 in FY2025), and concluded 83 proceedings, the second-highest annual total.
• Slightly fewer new cases. 60 new cases were registered (57 under the ICSID Convention and 3 under the Additional Facility Rules), compared with 67 in FY2025.
• Energy and mining still dominate. Oil and gas accounted for 25% of new cases and mining for 18%.
• A reality check on damages. In FY2026, 70% of disputes decided by tribunals resulted in no damages being awarded to the investor (e.g., due to dismissal of claims on jurisdictional grounds, findings of no liability, or liability without damages). Even where damages were awarded, the amounts were often significantly lower than those claimed: damages represented less than 10% of the amount claimed in three cases, and between 10% and 50% in five cases.
• Third-party funding is mainstream. Funding was disclosed in 12% of newly registered cases. As our case law item shows, funders are also increasingly present at the enforcement stage.
• A more diverse bench. Appointees represented a record 52 nationalities, and women accounted for 31% of appointments.

Takeaway? Investment arbitration has never been busier, but a claim is not a cheque. Investors should test their quantum early and realistically, and factor duration, costs and enforcement into their strategy from the outset.

PRACTICAL TIPS – Five Things to Consider When Settling an Ongoing Arbitration

Settlement can offer parties an opportunity to resolve an ongoing dispute without incurring the additional time and costs of pursuing the proceedings to a final award. However, parties should consider not only the commercial terms of the settlement, but also its implications for the arbitration and the enforceability of their agreement.

1.    Reassess settlement opportunities at key stages of the arbitration.

Negotiating positions evolve as new evidence emerges and the costs of the proceedings increase. Document production, the exchange of witness statements and the approach of the hearing are all useful moments to reassess the strengths and weaknesses of the case and decide whether settlement would be commercially preferable.

2.    Clearly define the scope of the settlement.

The settlement agreement should identify the claims and counterclaims being resolved and specify whether the parties intend to release any other claims arising from the same contract or dispute. Pay particular attention to related contracts and potential future claims, to avoid further proceedings over matters the parties intended to resolve.

3.    Consider recording the settlement in a consent award.

Where the applicable rules and law permit, parties may ask the tribunal to record their settlement in an award on agreed terms. Such an award may benefit from the enforcement regime of the New York Convention, potentially providing greater protection than a standalone settlement agreement. This should be considered before requesting the termination of the proceedings.

4.    Anticipate the consequences of non-compliance.

Where the settlement involves payment, specify the amount, currency, payment deadlines and consequences of default. Depending on the counterparty's financial position, it may also be appropriate to negotiate security, such as a bank guarantee, or to provide for payment in instalments.

5.    Address confidentiality, costs and the termination of proceedings.

The settlement should expressly deal with confidentiality and the allocation of arbitration costs and legal fees. Where payment is deferred, consider whether the arbitration should be terminated immediately or only once the agreed obligations have been fulfilled.

SECTORIAL NEWS – Arbitration and Ports

Ports are no longer just logistics assets. They sit at the crossroads of trade, national security and the energy transition, and they have become one of the most active areas for investment and commercial arbitration. Long concessions, state counterparties and changing political priorities make for a lot of disputes. Here are the developments worth watching.

• Concessions caught up in geopolitics. Following a ruling by Panama’s Supreme Court that the laws authorising Panama Ports Company’s concessions for the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals were unconstitutional, CK Hutchison’s subsidiary commenced ICC arbitration in February 2026. The parent then filed a separate investment treaty claim for more than US$1.5 billion (August 2026). In Australia, Ye Cheng and other investors associated with Landbridge commenced the first ICSID arbitration claim against Australia (Ye Cheng v Australia, ICSID Case No. ARB/26/18) under the China–Australia Free Trade Agreement, challenging the government’s plan to take back the Port of Darwin to Australian ownership. Expect more claims where states review port investments on national security grounds. The key battlegrounds will be treaty security exceptions and non-discrimination.
• Winning the award is only half the battle. DP World’s dispute with Djibouti over the Doraleh Container Terminal has produced a long run of LCIA rulings in its favour, most recently confirming in October 2025 that the 2018 seizure was unlawful. The October 2025 ruling concerned the State-owned company Port de Djibouti (PDSA), against which the tribunal declined to award damages. DP World is still pursuing enforcement of earlier awards worth around US$685 million against Djibouti. For port investors, thinking about enforcement and where the state's assets are should start at the investment stage.
• Partial takings and rival terminals. Disputes need not involve a full expropriation. In DP World v Belgium, a divided ICSID tribunal awarded €41.3 million (February 2024, now in annulment proceedings) after the Antwerp port authority reallocated part of DP World’s concession to a competing operator. Montevideo shows how a settlement can backfire. Uruguay extended Katoen Natie’s terminal concession to 2081 to head off a US$1.5 billion claim. That extension then prompted a US$600 million claim by the rival operator Neltume Ports under the Chile–Uruguay BIT. Neltume withdrew it this year without compensation or any admission of liability by Uruguay, and a related arbitration brought by ATCO remains pending, although Urugay has expressed an expectation that it may be resolved on similar terms. The lesson: settling with one operator can create a claim from another.
• Termination for breach: contract dispute or treaty claim? Uruguay now faces a threatened investment treaty claim under the US–Uruguay BIT from two US investors in Lobraus Puerto Libre, a free-port warehouse operator. Uruguay’s national ports authority, ANP, rescinded Lobraus's concession, which ran until 2046. ANP cited failures to build as planned, unpaid concession fees and fines, and it is also seeking to call a performance bond. The investors allege a pattern of arbitrary and discriminatory conduct. The state will likely answer that it simply exercised contractual termination rights, which is not a sovereign act. The case will also show how parallel local court proceedings sit alongside the treaty claim. For concessionaires, the message is that a well-documented record of their own performance is often decisive.
• Decarbonisation: the next source of disputes. Under the EU’s AFIR and FuelEU Maritime Regulations, qualifying ports must offer shore-side electricity by the end of 2029, and container and passenger ships must use it from 2030. Large investments on a tight timetable involving many parties are a classic setting for construction and concession disputes. Expect delay claims where grid connections or permits arrive late, performance disputes over new technology that fails to work with different vessels, and requests to rebalance long-term concessions under change-in-law clauses.
• Drafting tip: one project, many contracts. Port projects involve port authorities, terminal operators, grid operators, contractors and lenders. To avoid parallel proceedings and inconsistent decisions, align the arbitration clauses across related contracts (same institution, same seat) and provide for joinder and consolidation. Investors should also check their treaty protection before any dispute is foreseeable, because restructuring later invites an abuse-of-process objection.

BY THE WAY –Join us for an Interesting Discussion on Arbitrator Liability on 12 November 2026, from 1pm to 2pm organised by the DIS

Join us for an interesting discussion on arbitrator liability on 12 November 2026, from 1pm to 2pm A recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is sparking debate in the arbitration community. Under its order of 30 July 2026 (IZB 6/26), a party to setting-aside or enforcement proceedings may serve a third-party notice (Streitverkündung) on an arbitrator if it believes it has recourse claims against them. Supporters see this as a contribution to arbitrator accountability. Critics see a tactical lever that losing parties can use to prevent remission to the same tribunal or to jeopardise ongoing proceedings. Arbitrators would then be left to choose between joining the proceedings, which renders them biased, and forgoing their defence.

In light of this decision, I am very happy to present the French perspective on a panel moderated by my partner Felix Dörfelt and will explore arbitrator liability and third-party notices to arbitrators through a cross-jurisdictional lens. We will compare the approaches taken in Germany (Anna Masser, manner | masser), Switzerland (Felix Dasser, Homburger) and France and will consider the practical and strategic implications for arbitrators and parties alike, including how these issues may shape conduct, risk assessment and decision-making in arbitration. Here is the link to join us: Lunch DIScussions: BGH I ZB 6/26 and Its Procedural and Strategic Implications: A Cross-Border View …