I concur with my colleagues on several significant issues of the case: • The questions of jurisdiction, admissibility, control and waivers; • the rejection of the expropriation (NAFTA Art. 1110) claim; • the rejection of the “denial of administrative justice” claim; • the rejection of the NAFTA governments' position that pursuant to Article 1102 Claimant needs to prove that the government had a direct intention to harm the foreign investor because it is foreign is required for Art. 1102 and needs to be proven by claimant; • the general view that the principle of legitimate expectation forms part, i.e. a subcategory, of the duty to afford fair and equitable treatment under Art. 1105 of the NAFTA. We also seem to concur on the general conditions for this claim — an expectation of the investor to be caused by and attributed to the government, backed-up by investment relying on such expectation, requiring the legitimacy of the expectation in terms of the competency of the officials responsible for it and the procedure for issuing it and the reasonableness of the investor in relying on the expectation. I do, however, not concur with the application of this standard to the specific factual situation in light of the purpose, specific content and precedents of the legitimate expectations standard as it should be applied under investment protection treaties based on recent relevant jurisprudence.