Company X has its seat in State A and operates in the energy sector. On 21 January 2021, company X concluded a contract for the extraction and sale of liquefied natural gas with State B and subsequently invested $100,000,000 to commence extraction operations in June 2021. In July 2021, State B passed legislation providing incentives to companies operating in the production of wind energy within the territory of State B and limited the extractive capacity of company X within the territory of State B.

In February 2021, company X decided to open a branch based in State A to produce cars, which are largely destined for export to State C. In July 2021, State C adopted an astringent climate policy; it imposed a cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consequently established for car manufacturers within State C a duty to surrender GHG emission allowances. Considering that States A and B do not have a similar climate policy in place, State C decided to impose a tariff on cars imported from both State A and B; however, in September 2021 State C withdrew the tariff on cars imported from State B only.

In June 2021, individual P based in Sate C concluded a contract with company X for the sale of a car. The contract between X and P established that X would deliver a bill of lading to bank Z and P would pay the price of the car to Z and claim the car from the carrier via the bill of lading delivered by X. Subsequently, X shipped the goods via company R, received a bill of lading and delivered the bill of lading to transport company T, based on transport contracts establishing the responsibility of the carrier for any inconvenient arising in delivery after shipping. Instead of delivering the bill of lading to Z, T delivered it directly to P, who claimed the car from R without paying Z.