Panama Ports Company S.A. (PPC) advises that it commenced arbitration against the Republic of Panama on 3 February 2026 pursuant to the applicable concession contract and the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.
The commencement of arbitration by PPC follows a campaign by the Panamanian State specifically targeting PPC and its concession contract spanning a year that has been marked by a range of abrupt actions by the Panamanian State culminating in grave and imminent further damage to PPC, while similar port sector contracts have not been targeted.
Panama Canal's Port of Balboa, managed by CK Hutchison Holdings, in Panama City. AP Photo
The arbitration also follows extensive efforts by PPC spanning a year to consult and avoid disputes. While diligently carrying out port operations and cooperating with the Panamanian State in many ways, PPC also has consistently advised through diverse communications its concerns regarding the State campaign as it has unfolded and sought clarity and consultations to avoid the necessity of arbitration, to no avail. Instead, over the past year, since the start of the present year, and even through recent days, the Panamanian State routinely disregarded communications, efforts to consult, and requests for clarity.
The arbitration is based on the concession contract and legal framework that have been enshrined over almost three decades as a “contract-law,” providing legal certainty and long-term respect for the applicable legal and contractual framework. The Republic of Panama has breached the applicable Contract and law. PPC seeks extensive damages based on an assessment of relevant financial data, subject to prompt resolution, and such other requests for relief as may prove necessary. PPC and its investors continue to permanently reserve all rights.
Cranes load a cargo ship at Panama Canal's Port of Balboa, managed by CK Hutchison Holdings, in Panama City. AP Photo
As a backdrop to the arbitration, and in addition to the other aspects of its campaign, over the past year, the Panamanian State choose to reverse its longstanding positions regarding the legal and contractual framework, breached its obligations under the contract, and commenced, pursued, and/or supported legal proceedings aimed at destroying the concession contract, which was the result of a transparent international bidding process.
As PPC has advised, the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Panama issued an irregular press statement after the closure of the Supreme Court of Justice on the night of 29 January 2026, regarding a ruling to declare Law No. 5 of 16 January 1997 unconstitutional, among other relevant laws and instruments. Such an outcome is diametrically opposed to previous decisions issued by the Supreme Court regarding contracts similar to the PPC contract. The court ruling has not yet been published or become effective.
Since early on the morning after the judicial press release, the Panamanian State declared and broadly deployed steps to take over the operations of PPC. With various references to the unpublished court ruling, the steps taken by the State have included unexpected site visits and instructions that PPC, a private company, provide unrestricted access to physical, commercial, and intellectual property and information, as well as to employees, on the basis that the State is “systematizing and executing" a port transition “plan” through “coordinated actions” of State authorities.
Cargo containers sit stacked as cranes load and unload containers from cargo ships at the Cristobal port, operated by the Panama Ports Company, in Colon, Panama, Feb. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix, File)
PPC has continued to manage port operations and respectfully interact with State representatives, including requesting access to the referenced plan and opportunities to consult and coordinate. As PPC has highlighted, PPC and its investor have invested extensively in infrastructure, technology, and human development—an amount multiple times the investment made by any other port operator in the country. These investments have generated thousands of direct and indirect jobs and have been determinant in establishing Panama as a globally recognized port and logistics hub, attracting the world's leading shipping lines and generating positive impact for the entire nation.
Despite recent developments, PPC strongly reiterates its invitation to the Panamanian State for clarity and consultations to resolve this matter.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A new Tennessee law has eased up on two longstanding financial hurdles for people with felony sentences who want their voting rights back, including a unique requirement among states that they must have fully paid their child support costs.
The Republican-supermajority Legislature approved the Democratic-sponsored change, which now lets people prove they have complied for the last year with child support orders, such as payment plans. The legislation also unties the payment of all court costs from voting rights restoration.
Advocates for years have sought various changes to Tennessee’s voting rights restoration system at the statehouse and in court. They say loosening these two rules marks the biggest rollback of restrictions to voting rights restoration in decades.
“This is huge and this is history,” said Keeda Haynes, senior attorney for the advocacy group Free Hearts led by formerly incarcerated women like her.
Most Republicans voted for it and Democrats supported it unanimously. The law took effect immediately upon Republican Gov. Bill Lee's signature last week.
“I think people are at a point where they want to just remove the barriers out of the way and allow people to be fully functional members of society,” said Democratic House Minority Leader Karen Camper, a bill sponsor.
In 2023 and early 2024, the state shelved a paperwork process that didn’t require going to court and decided gun rights were required to restore the right to vote. Election officials said a court ruling made the changes necessary, though voting rights advocates said officials misinterpreted the order.
Last year, lawmakers untangled voting and gun rights. But voting rights advocates opposed some of the bill's other provisions, such as keeping the process in the courts, where costs can rack up if someone isn't ruled indigent.
Easing up on the financial requirements uncommonly split legislative Republicans. For instance, Senate Speaker Randy McNally voted against it, while House Speaker Cameron Sexton supported it, noting that people aren't getting forgiveness on making their payments.
“They need to continue paying that, and as long as they do, then there’s a possibility (to restore their voting rights)," Sexton said. "I really think that’s harder for people to argue against than maybe what something else was.”
Republican Rep. Johnny Garrett, who voted no, said in committee his vote would hinge on whether “there still can be an (child support) arrearage owed beyond that 12 months.”
For some, backed-up child support payments could reach hundreds or thousands of dollars, and court costs could be hundreds or thousands more, said Gicola Lane, Campaign Legal Center's Restore Your Vote community partnership senior manager.
Advocates credited their narrowed focus, omitting goals such as automatic restoration of rights, no longer tying restitution payments to voting rights, or offering a path for certain people to restore their right who are permanently disenfranchised, including those convicted of voter fraud or most murder charges.
The bill passed the Senate last year and the House this year.
Lawmakers gave the child support requirement final passage in 2006 within an overhaul bill that also created a voting rights restoration process outside of court. Critics said the child support rule penalized impoverished parents.
Democrats were then narrowly hanging onto legislative leadership in both chambers. Republicans held a slim Senate majority but GOP defectors voted for a Democratic speaker.
Last year marked the dismissal of a nearly five-year-old federal lawsuit over Tennessee’s voting-rights restoration system. Free Hearts and the Campaign Legal Center represented plaintiffs in the long-delayed case, which saw some election policy changes along the way.
Roughly 184,000 people have completed supervision for felonies and their offenses don't preclude them from restoring their voting rights, according to a plaintiffs expert’s 2023 estimate in the lawsuit. About one in 10 were estimated to have outstanding child support payments, and more than six in 10 owed court courts, restitution or both, the expert said.
Both Republican and Democratic-led states have eased the voting rights restoration process in recent years. Some states have added complexities.
In Florida, after voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 restoring the right to vote for people with felony convictions, the Republican-controlled Legislature watered that down by requiring payment of fines, fees and court costs.
Voting rights are automatically restored upon release in nearly half of states. In 15 others, it occurs after parole, probation or a similar period and sometimes requires paying outstanding court costs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Maine and Vermont, people with felonies keep their voting rights in prison, the NCSL says.
Ten other states including Tennessee require additional government action. Virginia ’s governor must intervene to restore voting rights of people convicted of felonies. In some states, including Tennessee, certain conviction types render someone ineligible.
However, Virginia lawmakers this year have passed a proposed state constitutional amendment to ask voters whether they want automatic voting rights restoration after someone is released from prison. Kentucky lawmakers have proposed a similar change for voters' consideration that would automatically restore voting rights after certain completed sentences, including probation.
FILE - The Tennessee Capitol is seen, Jan. 22, 2024, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV, File)
