The long-running arbitration between TPG Peppertree and Terra Towers over the portfolio of Central American telecommunications assets, Continental Towers, has descended into an increasingly acrimonious battle for public narrative, with fresh allegations emerging that call into question the integrity of the proceedings and the conduct of arbitration panel chair Marc Goldstein.
This publication has followed the story occasionally over the years, including some commentary about the usual use of “sua sponte” orders by the tribunal chair Marc Goldstein, an alleged steamy extramarital affair between two executives now serving prison time, and INTERPOL Red Notice warrants for TPG Peppertree executives, Ryan Lepene, Howard Mandel, and John Ranieri, among others.
The latest turn in the dispute is that the arbitration tribunal has been abruptly concluded without finding a prevailing party. The TPG Peppertree side is claiming victory and “the end” of the dispute, but the majority shareholder is also rejoicing, because they are finally now allowed to pursue full counterclaims in new proceedings. According to the majority shareholders’ press release, “Despite misleading comments from the minority shareholders led by TPG Perpertree, the dispute is far from over, and the majority shareholder is determined to bring all facts to light. Terra Towers welcomes the conclusion of this arbitration and announces its determination to pursue counterclaims. “
In a detailed response to recent press coverage that was emailed to Arbitration Monitor, Terra Towers and Continental Towers LATAM have leveled serious accusations against both the ICDR tribunal and TPG Peppertree, painting a picture of an arbitration process that has allegedly exceeded its mandate, disregarded sovereign judicial authority, and been tainted by apparent arbitrator bias.
The Blog Post Controversy
The most explosive allegation centers on the tribunal chair’s conduct. According to Terra Towers, Goldstein published “disparaging, unsubstantiated remarks about respondents in his personal blog minutes before issuing the final award”—an action Terra describes as “an extraordinary display of apparent bias raising serious questions about the proceeding’s integrity.”
If accurate, such timing would be highly unusual in arbitration practice, where arbitrators are expected to maintain strict neutrality and avoid any appearance of prejudgment. The International Bar Association’s Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration emphasize that arbitrators must avoid situations that could reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality.
Terra Towers’ legal team has indicated these allegations of bias will form part of their appeal strategy before the Second Circuit and in the British Virgin Islands, where they are challenging what they describe as “irregular findings.”
Goldstein’s eccentric blogging activity has also attracted scrutiny from Clare Rewcastle Brown, a highly respected investigative journalist who rose to fame for breaking the story on the Goldman Sachs 1MDB fraud. In several publications published on her site, Sarawak Report, she reports that the arbitration chair, Marc Goldstein, appears to continue to refuse to comment whether or not he was the beneficiary of a Goldman Sachs bank account where a bribe was allegedly paid to sway these proceedings. Goldstein has emphatically denied the accusations of bias on his blog, which also appears to show extraordinary vitriol toward one of the parties in the dispute.
One of Rewcastle Brown’s more recent reports also hinted at an expanding law enforcement action in other countries related to this arbitration:
Sarawak Report understands from sources close to the investigations that further connected allegations have been raised in yet another criminal complaint lodged in a separate Latin American country related to the sprawling interests of Continental Towers.
Mutual assistance notices have been sent to trace money transfers that could shed significant light on the unusual and venomous backdrop to this case involving further alleged malpractices by the powerful American bank at a time when it was on notice over 1MDB.
Jurisdictional Questions Over Non-Parties
A central dispute revolves around the tribunal’s findings concerning Jorge Hernández, whom Terra Towers insists “is not a signatory to the shareholders’ agreement nor any document involved in this arbitration.”
The company argues that the tribunal fundamentally exceeded its authority by making findings and ordering remedies against an individual who was never bound by the arbitration agreement. “He had no contractual obligations because he was never a party to it,” Terra Towers states bluntly.
This raises fundamental questions about arbitral jurisdiction. International arbitration operates on the principle of consent—tribunals derive their authority from the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Findings concerning non-signatories, absent exceptional circumstances like piercing the corporate veil or agency relationships, typically fall outside a tribunal’s mandate.
TPG Peppertree’s characterization that the tribunal concluded Hernández “obstructed the process, interfered with governance, and breached his obligations under the agreement” is, according to Terra, “demonstrably false” given his non-party status.
The Criminal Proceedings Flashpoint
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the dispute involves the intersection of private arbitration with sovereign criminal proceedings in Guatemala and El Salvador.
Terra Towers accuses TPG Peppertree of showing “troubling disregard for Central American judicial sovereignty” through statements suggesting the company can determine the merit of criminal proceedings initiated by Prosecutors General in those jurisdictions. The company emphasizes that these investigations resulted in arrest warrants, INTERPOL Red Notices, and extradition requests—all formal exercises of prosecutorial authority under national law.
“Neither TPG Peppertree nor any arbitration tribunal has standing to determine the merit of sovereign criminal proceedings,” Terra Towers argues, citing Judge Kaplan’s explicit statements that U.S. courts have no power to interfere with foreign criminal proceedings.
The characterization of legitimate criminal investigations as “false complaints” represents an attempt to use arbitral proceedings to shield parties from criminal accountability, the statement from Terra Towers argues.
The civil contempt ruling against DT Holdings illustrates the legal quagmire. Terra claims DT Holdings has been ordered to produce documentation concerning criminal investigations it neither controls nor participates in, and that both Guatemalan and Salvadoran law prohibit such production to private parties. “Local law views such compelled production as an improper effort to circumvent criminal due process,” the company states.
This presents a genuine dilemma: how can a party comply with U.S. court orders when doing so would allegedly violate the criminal procedure laws of the jurisdictions where the investigations are pending?
The Gaitán Appointment Controversy
The dispute over the attempted installation of Jorge Leonel Gaitán Paredes as CEO reveals another layer of conflict. Terra Towers maintains that Gaitán “was never validly appointed CEO” and that the arbitration panel and claimants insisted on his installation “despite serious criminal indictments, pretrial detention in jail, and an ongoing extradition process.”
Terra argues that local law prohibits companies operating critical telecommunications infrastructure from being controlled by individuals facing serious criminal charges, and that the panel’s expectations amounted to demanding violations of local criminal law—”fundamental disregard for legal obligations under multiple legal systems.”
The Narrative Gap: Recent Awards Omitted
Significantly, Terra Towers alleges that recent press coverage omitted critical developments from 2025. According to the company, a second ICDR award issued in November 2025 “found that no party prevailed in the final phase, rejected the entirety of damages sought by Peppertree and AMLQ, and described conditions for lifting the stay on Terra’s counterclaims.”
If accurate, this substantially complicates any simple narrative of Peppertree victory and suggests the arbitration has produced more nuanced outcomes than public statements might indicate.
Due Process Double Standards?
Terra Towers also accuses TPG Peppertree of applying due process principles selectively—demanding procedural protections before U.S. enforcement of foreign judgments while “consistently seeking immediate enforcement of preliminary U.S. rulings in Central America without comparable procedural respect.”
This allegation strikes at fundamental fairness concerns in cross-border enforcement proceedings and raises questions about whether parties are consistently respecting the judicial processes of different jurisdictions.
Rewcastle Brown has reportedly observed that such double standards—where parties invoke due process protections in Western jurisdictions while simultaneously seeking to bypass them elsewhere—represent a troubling pattern in international disputes involving developing countries.
Implications for International Arbitration
The Continental Towers dispute raises uncomfortable questions for the international arbitration community. When arbitration intersects with sovereign criminal proceedings, whose authority prevails? What recourse exists when parties allege arbitrator bias? How should tribunals handle situations where compliance with arbitral orders would allegedly violate local criminal law?
The involvement of a journalist of Rewcastle Brown’s caliber—someone whose 1MDB reporting led to the downfall of a Malaysian prime minister and exposed billions in financial fraud—signals that the case has implications extending beyond typical commercial disputes. Her scrutiny suggests concerns about whether arbitration mechanisms are being weaponized to interfere with legitimate criminal investigations in jurisdictions with less institutional power.
As this dispute continues through multiple appellate forums, the answers may have implications well beyond the immediate parties—particularly for arbitrations involving parties from jurisdictions with different legal traditions and varying levels of judicial independence.
For now, the battle for narrative supremacy continues, with each side presenting sharply contrasting accounts of the same proceedings. The ultimate resolution may take years to unfold across multiple judicial systems, but the questions about arbitrator conduct, jurisdictional overreach, and respect for sovereign prosecutorial authority demand answers that the international arbitration community cannot afford to ignore.
