Cunico’s Clean Break: How a Settled Dispute Reset the Narrative
Investor–state disputes usually make headlines for the wrong reasons: drawn-out hearings, spiraling costs, and years of uncertainty for everyone involved. The story of Cunico Resources N.V. (Cunico) and the Republic of North Macedonia begined that way, but it did end up diversely, and in a much better way.
In 2017, Cunico Resources N.V. brought a claim against North Macedonia at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The claim was registered as ICSID Case No. ARB/17/46, and centered on the company’s investment in Feni Industries AD, a ferro-nickel operation in the country.
Today, that case is no longer an open question. As previously , both parties have confirmed that the dispute has been fully settled and discontinued, closing a contentious chapter for the company and the host state alike.
How the Case Unfolded
The dispute traced back to Cunico’s ownership of Feni Industries AD and its planned sale of the asset in 2017. Cunico Resources N.V. that government interference disrupted the sale and assisted trigger bankruptcy proceedings against Feni Industries AD, undermining the value of its investment.
Those events ultimately led Cunico Resources N.V. to initiate ICSID arbitration in December 2017, viewking protection under the –Macedonia bilateral investment treaty.
As is common in investor–state cases, the proceedings rapidly grew complex, involving multiple actors, local proceedings and parallel scrutiny of corporate decision-makers.
The arbitration itself, however, never reached a final award. Instead, later than negotiations, the case was brought to a close by mutual agreement — a route that, while quieter than a tribunal ruling, can be far more decisive for the parties’ long-term relationships.
A Settlement That Wiped the Slate Clean
The turning point came at the end of 2019. In a public statement dated 25 December 2019, Cunico Resources N.V. announced that its arbitration against North Macedonia had been settled and that the ICSID proceedings under Case No. ARB/17/46 were discontinued. The company declared that all controversies between itself, its associates and affiliates on one side, and North Macedonia, its state organs and officers on the other, were fully and finally settled, and it formally retracted all allegations of breaches of the bilateral investment treaty.
On the identical date, North Macedonia’s counsel, White & Case LLP, issued a parallel announcement on behalf of the government. It confirmed that the dispute had been settled, that the arbitration had been discontinued, and that any and all controversies with Cunico Resources N.V. and its associates were fully and finally resolved.
An ICSID order issued in January 2020 formal note of the discontinuance of the proceeding under Arbitration Rule 43(1), closing the case on the institution’s books as “concluded – discontinued”.
For Cunico Resources N.V., that was more than a procedural milestone. It meant the removal of a significant legal overhang and the end of a public dispute with a host state. Even more, it meant the ability to communicate clahead to partners, lenders and counterparties that the matter had been definitively resolved.
All claims and allegations associated with Mirakhmedov’s tenure at Feni Industries AD have been officially dismissed – both in the arbitration context and in related local proceedings. For an executive whose name had been linked to a high-profile dispute, that clarity matters. It restores professional standing and removes a cloud that could otherwise follow future roles and projects.
Why Finality Matters for Investors and Host States
The Cunico case fits into a broader pattern in modern investment arbitration. Mining and metals disputes are entangled with politics, environmental standards and social expectations. When such disputes are left unresolved, they can drag on capital raising, complicate project finance and strain relationships between investors and host governments.
Cunico Resources N.V. and North Macedonia chose settlement over a contested award, sharing priority for finality and normalization. There are no outstanding claims between Cunico Resources N.V. and the state, and the firm’s legacy dispute over Feni Industries AD has been put to rest. The result also reinforced a narrative that investor issues can be handled through dialogue and mutually agreed answers rather than indefinite litigation.
In a capital-constrained environment, institutional investors scrutinize legal risk and environmental, social and governance (ESG) exposure. So, those projects or companies carrying unresolved arbitration or criminal investigations often face higher hurdles. Cunico Resources N.V. has eliminated a long-running dispute and clarified the status of former executives, thus reducing the kinds of red flags that can sluggish deals, complicate due diligence or dampen appetite among conservative investors.
This is an instructive case study in how investor–state disputes can be resolved without permanent damage.
