Arbitration Action Over Epsilon Tower Dispute In Caracas
The Spanish law firm Cremades & Asociados, renowned for international arbitration work, has announced plans to initiate a formal procedure against the government of Nicolás Maduro regarding what the plaintiffs describe as an unlawful occupation and confiscation of the Epsilon Tower in Caracas. The 15-story tower is owned by Bottlenose Investments Limited, a Barbados-based company, and has been declared a matter of public benefit since mid-2010. The case centers on the government’s actions in relation to ownership and control of the property, which Bottlenose asserts was illegally expropriated and misappropriated through a sequence of governmental decrees and dealings.
Units within the tower are said to be occupied by the International Center for Productive Investment, a Venezuelan state entity charged with promoting foreign investment. The board reportedly includes senior figures from the government, including the vice president and the minister of economy and finance. One of the individuals connected to the case is Delcy Rodríguez, who is referenced as having an official office within the building. The involvement of Rodríguez has previously drawn attention in international discussions after travel events in Spain related to the European Union travel ban regime. The matter has drawn attention for its political and diplomatic implications as much as for the property dispute itself.
The claim seeks damages totaling 116 million US dollars. The Spanish firm represents Bottlenose Investments, which relies on an international investment protection framework signed in 1994 between Venezuela and Barbados. The proposed arbitration would follow the procedures outlined under United Nations Commission on International Trade Law rules, reflecting a commitment to a formal, rule-bound process for settling investor-state disputes. The case is anchored in a broader context of investment protection and treaty obligations that govern relations between Venezuela and Barbados, and it is framed as a challenge to the government actions affecting Bottlenose’s rights as an investor.
The dispute originates from Bottlenose Investments Limited, a Barbados-registered entity known for protecting shareholder anonymity. The notice of dispute indicates that the Venezuelan Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs acknowledged receipt. The notification identifies four Venezuelan officials as respondents, including the president, the minister of foreign affairs, the vice president, and the attorney general. The correspondence has been reported as part of a broader media involvement in the case and is cited as an official channel for initiating dispute resolution proceedings. This step signals the seriousness with which Bottlenose pursues compensation for losses it alleges resulted from government actions.
Property Holdings, Space Allocation, and Ownership History
Legal documents summarize Bottlenose’s ownership timeline for Torre Epsilon, noting that the company acquired ownership rights between late 2008 and early 2009. The claim outlines the size of the property: approximately 5,529 square meters of office space, 1,182 square meters of commercial area, and 280 parking spaces distributed across the Epsilon Tower. The building sits within the El Rosal area of the Chacao municipality in Caracas, an urban district noted for its mix of commercial and residential activity. Reports describe the initial ownership as the result of participation arrangements with a civic association and highlight the role of a major insurer in the ownership chain. Ownership rights were subsequently transferred to Bottlenose in January 2009, setting the stage for later government actions that Bottlenose asserts violated its contractual and property rights.
According to the record, the Venezuelan government issued a sequence of decrees in the following year that culminated in expropriation of the precursor holder, La Previsora. The measures are described as expanding the concept of public and social benefit to include the Epsilon Tower, with Bottlenose claiming that its rights were nullified and that shares and assets, including the tower, were improperly directed to other uses. There were also attempts to sell the building to third parties, such as an airline enterprise, actions that Bottlenose contends culminated in a purchase agreement dissolution in 2014. The timeline underscores the tension between private property rights and state actions that Bottlenose regards as unlawful expropriation and dispossession.
From Bottlenose’s perspective, compensation for the losses tied to its Venezuelan investment should reflect the value of the property rights at the moment of expropriation. The company estimates the recoverable amount at no less than 116 million US dollars, arguing that the value of the affected rights should be fully recognized under applicable international investment protections. The case frames the government’s measures as serious violations of the bilateral investment treaty in force, as well as breaches of general international law. Bottlenose asserts that it pursued available avenues to restore its rights and obtain full compensation for the losses incurred as a result of government actions.
Notifications indicate a willingness to pursue an amicable settlement; however, in the absence of such a resolution, Bottlenose intends to press the matter through arbitration. The process would be overseen by a Spanish attorney with a track record in similar large-scale disputes. The attorney has previously been involved in historic international claims, illustrating the breadth of experience brought to this matter and signaling the seriousness with which the claim is being pursued. The case aligns with broader patterns of investor-state arbitration in which expropriation and related measures are challenged under international law and treaty obligations, with parties seeking prompt and full redress for damages suffered as a result of state actions.
Overall, the Bottlenose dispute highlights the friction points between state sovereignty, strategic economic policy, and protections offered under international investment treaties. It also illustrates how foreign investors deploy both treaty-based remedies and arbitration to secure outcomes when urban development assets become entangled in political processes. The outcome will depend on the precise interpretation of treaty obligations, the evidence surrounding the expropriation sequence, and the procedural rules applied by the arbitration forum, as well as how the involved parties present their arguments regarding the value and ownership of the Epsilon Tower. Source attributions reflect the official notices and public records surrounding the dispute, and industry observers will be watching for how this case might influence similar investment-related disputes in the region and beyond.