Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et al. v. US

Several members of the tobacco industry contended that actions taken by various states in the U.S. to implement the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement violated their rights under NAFTA. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction over all but one of the claimants. The Tribunal ruled against the surviving claimant, finding that contrary to the claimants' expropriation claim, the claimant had not been deprived of ownership or control of his business importing and distributing cigarettes, he did not establish that he had been denied national or most-favored-nation treatment, and he failed to establish that his treatment did not conform to the customary minimum standard of treatment required by NAFTA.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd and ors v United States, Award, ICSID Case No Case ARB/10/5, IIC 481 (2011), 12th January 2011, ICSID.

  • United States
  • Jan 12, 2011
  • International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Arthur Montour, Jr.
  • Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd.
  • Jerry Montour
  • Kenneth Hill

Defendant United States of America

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

None

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"That said, the Tribunal believes that a good case could be made that consultations should have occurred with governments of the Indian tribes or nations in the United States whose members and sovereign interests could, and apparently are, being affected by the MSA and related measures to regulate commerce in tobacco. Retail tobacco businesses are in many Indian reservations across the country, constituting important sources of income and catalyzing other economic activity among indigenous communities. The evidence before the Tribunal has shown many of the actual or potential effects of the MSA and related measures on reservation tobacco sales and distribution to reservations retailers. The United States federal government admits to the need for consultations with indigenous communities on legislative and administrative measures affecting them, as a matter of federal policy if not as a matter of international law. 56 However, at the hearing the Respondent's counsel, when questioned by the Tribunal, confirmed that the governments of Indian nations had not been consulted about the MSA."