What Panama’s legal victory over Spain’s Sacyr means for investors

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal rejected Sacyr’s $2.3 billion claim over cost overruns in the Panama Canal expansion, one of the world’s most ambitious infrastructure projects.

The case revolved around the Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC) consortium, led by Sacyr alongside Italy’s Salini Impregilo and Belgium’s Jan de Nul, which accused the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) of design errors that inflated costs. The ICC, however, ruled that the contractors assumed those risks when signing the 2009 contract, confirming the ACP’s stance.

For investors, the ruling reinforces Panama’s reputation as a country where the rule of law prevails in complex international disputes — a reassuring sign in a region often criticised for legal uncertainty. It highlights the ACP’s professional management of the canal, a strategic asset that generates around 6% of the country’s GDP and continues to attract global trade and private investment.

The verdict also sets a precedent for other states engaged in large infrastructure projects: it shows that governments can successfully defend themselves against corporate claims when contracts are clear and institutions remain firm.

For Sacyr, the loss represents not only a financial setback but also reputational damage in future tenders. For Panama, it consolidates its image as a dependable and sovereign player in global infrastructure and a reminder to investors that the canal remains a stable, well-governed engine of trade.