In assessing the applicant`s claims and knowledge of the applicant`s contradictory conduct – such as conflicting evidence of the date of the acquisition and the fact that the acquisition was not mentioned in the accounts – the court found that the applicant was unable to provide sufficient evidence of his investor status and that he “deliberately and in bad faith abused the arbitration; she said she was an investor when she knew that was not the case. 77 d. to 159 . Most importantly, the court assessed whether Cementownia`s conduct would have been an illegitimate contract-buying practice, even if the applicant could prove that he had acquired shares prior to termination. The court found that Cementownia`s claims against the principle of good faith were patently unfounded.78Id. 156-57. One of the main criticisms of contract shopping is that it is contrary to the principle of reciprocity and state consent.7 Some states have denounced or terminated their investment contracts because of the risk of contract shopping.8 What is “contract shopping” and how to distinguish between “legitimate nationality planning” and “abuse of contract” in international investment law? Should a complainant controlled by a host state be a protected investor or should the courts “penetrate his corporate veil”? Should an investor make his own contribution to the investment for which he needs protection? When is the restructuring of the company an abuse of process and what is the role of the concept of litigation in this regard? How effective are refusal clauses in countering contract purchases? These are some of the most important issues that investment arbitration tribunals have faced increasingly in recent years when deciding whether to maintain or reject an investment application based on “contract purchases.” While some legal approaches to arbitration tribunals have begun to consolidate, others remain uncertain and paint a picture of generally inconsistent jurisprudence. This is hardly surprising, given the thousands of international investment agreements that provide for the investor`s right to sue the host state for alleged breach of investment obligations. The book analyses and discusses the various ways in which arbitration tribunals have dealt with value judgment at the heart of the distinction between offensive contract shopping and un appealed trade and makes legeenda proposals on how states could reform their international investment agreements (particularly with regard to contracting) to make them less vulnerable to the practice of contract shopping. The legitimacy of the investment protection system is based on the state agreement expressed in IIA.103John Lee, Solve Concerns of Treaty Shopping in International Investment Arbitration, 6 (2) J.