The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 5, 2014, that the award of US$185.3 million against Argentina that was issued by an International Chamber of Commerce arbitral panel cannot be challenged on procedural grounds in the U.S. judicial system.  The dispute concerned an investment that the British-based BG Group made in gas distribution in Argentina in the 1990s.  The Argentine law at the time of the initial investment stated that the gas distribution tariffs would be calculated in dollars and the distributor was promised a reasonable rate of return.  This changed during the 2002 financial crisis, which led Argentina to change the denomination for gas tariffs to pesos, significantly reducing BG Group's profits.  BG sued under the UK-Argentina bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which required the parties to attempt local court resolution prior to arbitration.  BG bypassed this requirement and went straight to arbitration and Argentina did not object.  The arbitration ruled in favor of BG and then Argentina challenged the procedural basis for the arbitration in U.S. federal district court.  The lower federal court upheld the arbitral award, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed and held that the award should be vacated because the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the initial claim.  On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the original arbitral tribunal's decision.  The Court held that questions of procedure, such as whether a defense was waived, are questions that the tribunal should decide, not the courts.  The Court also said that contracts arbitrated under BITs should be treated the same as any other private contracts.  

The case was also interesting for its extensive reliance on foreign precedent to support its analysis, an uncommon occurrence in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The full opinion can be found here:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-138_97be.pdf