Structuring an investment to benefit from treaty protection is widely accepted as legitimate when it is done in advance, for genuine reasons and with real substance. Tribunals have recognised that investors may choose a holding jurisdiction partly for its treaty network. Problems arise when a restructuring takes place after a dispute has arisen or become foreseeable, or when the intermediate company is an empty shell. In those cases, claims have been rejected as an abuse of process or excluded under denial of benefits clauses. Investment treaty structuring should therefore be part of the original investment plan wherever possible.

There is no universal answer. The right choice depends on which treaties are in force, the protections and dispute options they offer, the investor's existing group structure, and tax, regulatory and commercial factors such as double tax treaties and banking relationships. Some treaties offer ICSID arbitration, others UNCITRAL arbitration, and some offer both. Some contain stronger protections, such as umbrella clauses or broad most-favoured-nation provisions, while others are narrower. We compare the realistic candidates against your actual group structure and objectives, rather than recommending a jurisdiction because it is popular in other markets or recommended by service providers.

Enough to show that it is a real company with genuine business activities in its home State, particularly where the treaty contains a denial of benefits clause or defines investors by reference to their seat or management. Relevant factors can include local directors who make decisions, office premises, staff, bank accounts, board meetings held locally and activities beyond simply holding shares. Tax rules in the holding jurisdiction may impose similar or stricter requirements. We work with local advisers to design a level of substance that is credible, proportionate to the investment and sustainable over the full life of the project.

Yes, and the two must be planned together. A holding company chosen for treaty protection will also affect withholding tax on dividends, interest and royalties, capital gains on exit and transfer pricing. The Finance Act 2026 reduced withholding on interest paid to non-residents to 10 percent, which affects shareholder loan structures. Double tax treaties may reduce rates further, subject to their own conditions and anti-abuse rules. A structure that works for investment protection but creates unexpected tax cost is rarely acceptable, so we coordinate with tax advisers on a single, consistent plan before documents are signed.

A well-drafted State contract can provide strong protection, including international arbitration, stabilisation, compensation on termination and a waiver of immunity. However, contract rights depend on the counterparty and can be affected by legislation, and enforcing them against a State entity can be difficult. Treaty protection operates at the level of international law and binds the State itself. The two work best together within investment treaty structuring. We review how the contract's forum and waiver clauses interact with the treaty, so that the contract does not unintentionally restrict a treaty claim the investor might later need against the State.

Act carefully. A restructuring made when a specific dispute is foreseeable is likely to be challenged, and may fail. The first step is to review what protection already exists under the current structure, which may be more than expected, together with contractual rights, domestic remedies and insurance. We can also advise on engagement with the relevant authority, including Invest Bangladesh, and on preserving evidence. Any proposed change should be considered on its merits, with a clear record of its business purpose, rather than presented as investment treaty structuring for a dispute that is already in view.

Political risk insurance, from private insurers or bodies such as the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, can cover risks including expropriation, currency inconvertibility, political violence and breach of contract by a government. It provides faster compensation than arbitration, but cover is limited by the policy terms. Insurers often require the investor to preserve its legal rights so that they can pursue recovery after paying. Treaty rights and insurance should therefore be addressed together in investment treaty structuring, with attention to subrogation, notice requirements and the investor's own control of any future claim against the State, including who decides whether to arbitrate.

They may be. Many treaties include loans and debt within the definition of investment, but some do not, and lenders may sit in different jurisdictions from shareholders. Foreign loans to Bangladeshi companies require compliance with Bangladesh Bank and other approval requirements, which also matters for the legality of the investment. Repayment, security and currency terms can all affect what is protected and how losses are measured. As part of investment treaty structuring, we review the full funding structure, including shareholder loans, external debt and guarantees, so that each element of the investment is documented and, where possible, protected.