On November 3, 2015, a tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention dismissed all claims brought by a U.S. investor against the Sultanate of Oman. Mr. Al Tamimi, a U.S. citizen, had initiated the arbitration proceedings for alleged breach of provisions of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (Agreement) regarding national treatment, expropriation, and minimum standard of treatment. Mr. Al Tamimi had invested in the development and operation of a limestone quarry, entering into contracts with the state-owned Oman Mining Company LLC (OMCO) for the lease of the site. According to the lease agreements, Mr. Al Tamimi’s companies promised to “comply with all obligations imposed by the relevant permit, and agreed to indemnify OMCO ‘at all times’ against any claims, demands and liability in respect thereof.” After the mining operations had started, Mr. Al Tamimi’s companies were issued a number of warnings and fines from Omani authorities for “unauthorised use of equipment, excavation of material from the wadi, operating outside of the boundary of the permit, and blasting outside of the concession area.” OMCO eventually terminated the lease agreements, stating that Mr. Al Tamimi had not complied with his payment obligations, such as reimbursing OMCO for fines it had paid. These proceedings ultimately culminated in a “demobilization plan,” requiring Mr. Al Tamimi’s businesses to immediately cease operations and remove all equipment from the area. He subsequently initiated arbitration, arguing that OMCO’s actions could be attributed to the state of Oman. The tribunal disagreed, finding that “there is no evidence that OMCO ever acted in the exercise of any regulatory, administrative or governmental authority delegated to it by the Omani State” and concluded that “[t]he fact that OMCO was a State-owned entity does not suffice.” Rather, the lease agreements with Mr. Al Tamimi’s companies were “simple commercial lease[s],” and in terminating them “OMCO did not seek to rely on any sovereign power to terminate the lease agreement[s], but only its express contractual rights” in a “commercial response to . . . alleged various and repeated breaches of contract.”