Malta arbitration reveals Steward Healthcare secrets

The long-awaited publication of the tribunal’s ruling in the Steward Healthcare arbitration has opened a rare window into a process that, until recently, was tightly sealed from public scrutiny. For more than two and a half years, the Maltese government and Steward Healthcare submitted extensive legal filings, confidential witness statements, and internal correspondence to support their respective claims for compensation.

Although most of this documentation was kept confidential during the proceedings, the final judgment—now publicly accessible—contains excerpts that shed unprecedented light on the underlying evidence, the behaviour of key players, and the circumstances that shaped one of Malta’s most contentious public-private partnerships.

This detailed exploration seeks to unpack the tribunal’s findings, expose the layers of secrecy surrounding the process, and examine the roles of those who shaped the outcome.

The secretive nature of the arbitration

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal, which presided over the dispute between the government and Steward Healthcare, dealt with an extensive collection of private and confidential evidence. The parties exchanged voluminous documentation over the course of two and a half years, including financial records, employment contracts, and internal communications.

From the start, the government appeared eager to keep the details away from the public eye. The sensitivity of the material—ranging from personal contracts to internal strategy memos—gave officials a legal pretext to limit disclosure. However, the final judgment offers a rare glimpse into those once-secret proceedings, revealing the complex interplay of politics, corporate behaviour, and legal argumentation that characterised the case.

Nadine Delicata and her re-emergence in government

Among the most significant revelations involves Dr. Nadine Delicata, the former president of Steward Healthcare Malta. Her name appeared repeatedly throughout the tribunal’s documentation. Interestingly, Delicata was later appointed as a consultant within the Ministry for Health, under the direction of Health Minister Jo Etienne Abela—a move that inevitably drew public attention due to her previous role with the concessionaire.

In February 2024, Steward filed Delicata’s witness statement as part of its initial “Statement of Claim.” This document marked the formal beginning of the company’s presentation of its side of the dispute before the ICC tribunal. The government, in turn, requested access to various supporting materials, including Delicata’s employment contract.

The tribunal intervened when Steward was reluctant to share the full document. In one of its procedural orders, the tribunal stated it was “not satisfied” with Steward’s explanation that all available documents had been provided. It ordered the company to disclose an unredacted version of Delicata’s contract to the government’s external legal team—underscoring the importance of transparency, even in confidential arbitration proceedings.

“Regarding the request and the redactions made to Dr Delicata’s employment contract, without taking a view with respect to the GDPR, but given the sensitivity of compensation, the Arbitral Tribunal hereby orders Claimants (Steward) to produce an unredacted version of Dr Delicata’s employment contract solely to those members of Respondent’s (the government) outside legal team on record,” the tribunal wrote.

Despite this ruling, Steward later informed the tribunal that Delicata would not testify at the evidentiary hearing, prompting the government to request that her witness statement be removed from the record. The tribunal ultimately allowed the statement to remain, noting that while it would be considered, it would carry less weight due to her absence from cross-examination.

Armin Ernst’s candid communications

Another figure who loomed large in the tribunal’s analysis was Armin Ernst, the former CEO of both Vitals Global Healthcare (VGH) and later Steward Healthcare Malta. According to the tribunal, the Maltese government described Ernst as “the mastermind behind Steward’s involvement” in the controversial hospital concession.

Internal emails written by Ernst, some of which date back to 2016, reveal his frank assessment of VGH’s internal problems even before Steward’s eventual acquisition. In one email to VGH’s shadow investor, Shaukat Ali, Ernst described the company as “an underfunded enterprise with repeated cash flow problems” and criticised its management for a “lack of operational and healthcare experience.”

He also raised alarms about “a lack of transparency of current contracts and obligations,” expressing concerns about possible misrepresentation of VGH’s leadership credentials. His email contained an unusually candid tone for internal correspondence, highlighting the depth of the organisation’s challenges.

“This does not just represent a wasted opportunity to be perceived as a well-funded enterprise that knows what it is doing, it also opened the door to public suspicion that we are not properly equipped to do the job and that the health system may be in jeopardy,” Ernst wrote.

“I realise that we state that over €20 million has been spent, but this has not been done in a way that is visible to the public, nor has it been done in a way to improve conditions for staff and facilities in a perceptible way. This issue remains unresolved.”

By 2017, as Steward prepared to assume control of the concession, Ernst expressed even deeper concerns to Ralph De La Torre, Steward’s global CEO.

“Claim is that €25 million has been invested to date, but that has mainly been into nice digs and cars, lawyers and entertainment to build the necessary facade,” he wrote, warning that the lack of visible infrastructure spending was “starting to make it clear to the outside world that there are insufficient investment funds available.”

These emails—quoted directly in the tribunal’s findings—paint a portrait of internal awareness that contrasts sharply with the public optimism expressed at the time of Steward’s takeover.

The secret non-disclosure agreement and Project Haven

The tribunal also examined a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed in November 2017 between Steward Healthcare and Ronald Mizzi, then a permanent secretary and senior government official. Acting on behalf of his minister, Konrad Mizzi, he co-signed the NDA with Armin Ernst.

Steward claimed that the agreement was necessary to allow due diligence before acquiring VGH’s assets. However, Ernst’s own correspondence—already revealing VGH’s liquidity issues—raises questions about the true motivation for the NDA and whether it served primarily to formalise discussions already taking place behind closed doors.

Just days after the NDA was signed, Mizzi travelled to London to attend a confidential meeting referred to internally as “Project Haven.” The meeting took place at the offices of McDermott Will & Emery, Steward’s legal advisors at the time. According to the tribunal, this meeting was also attended by lawyer Aron Mifsud Bonnici, who represented the government.

While the tribunal did not detail the full contents of Project Haven, it acknowledged references to internal correspondence that had not been disclosed. What is clear, however, is that the NDA and Project Haven paved the way for Steward’s eventual takeover of VGH’s hospital concession—culminating in the Share Purchase Agreement signed only a month later.

The tribunal’s broader findings

Throughout its ruling, the tribunal acknowledged the extraordinary complexity of the case. It found that both parties engaged in extensive procedural battles, including disputes over disclosure, witness participation, and evidentiary weight. While Steward sought to justify its position by claiming operational and financial obstacles, the government focused on alleged contractual failures and governance concerns.

The tribunal’s cautious language reflected the sensitivity of its findings, particularly in light of ongoing criminal proceedings in Malta involving several individuals associated with the concession. Rather than make sweeping judgments about criminal liability or political accountability, the tribunal limited itself to the contractual and procedural matters within its jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, the judgment provides invaluable insight into how the controversial hospitals concession evolved—and ultimately unraveled—behind the scenes.

What the evidence reveals

The internal emails, witness statements, and confidential agreements cited in the ruling illustrate a pattern of mismanagement and opacity that plagued the project from its inception. Ernst’s communications indicate that the concession’s problems were not merely operational but structural, rooted in insufficient funding and questionable leadership.

Meanwhile, the government’s decision to re-engage individuals once associated with Steward, such as Delicata, raises questions about the boundaries between public service and private sector accountability.

Taken together, the tribunal’s published excerpts reveal that much of the controversy surrounding the concession was already visible to those involved long before it became public knowledge.

Looking ahead

While the arbitration may have concluded, the broader implications for Malta’s governance, public procurement, and transparency remain unresolved. The tribunal’s decision closes one chapter of a long-running saga, but its revelations will continue to shape public debate.

The case underscores the need for stricter oversight mechanisms in public-private partnerships, greater disclosure in government contracting, and an uncompromising commitment to accountability.

Conclusion

The Steward Healthcare arbitration highlights the intricate and often opaque nature of high-stakes public-private partnerships. The tribunal’s ruling, while primarily focused on procedural and contractual matters, exposes the layers of complexity, secrecy, and internal discord that defined the concession from its inception. Figures such as Nadine Delicata and Armin Ernst played pivotal roles, with internal communications revealing both the operational challenges and the strategic manoeuvres behind the scenes.

Beyond the specifics of this case, the arbitration underscores broader lessons for governance and accountability in Malta. Transparent processes, rigorous oversight, and clear separation between public duties and private interests are essential to prevent similar controversies in the future. While the legal proceedings have concluded, the implications of this case will resonate for years, serving as a cautionary tale for both policymakers and private operators engaged in public sector projects.

In essence, the Steward Healthcare saga reflects not just a contractual dispute, but a broader narrative about the importance of integrity, transparency, and diligence in managing public resources and partnerships.

FAQs

What was the Steward Healthcare arbitration about?
It concerned a dispute between the Maltese government and Steward Healthcare over the failed hospitals concession originally awarded to Vitals Global Healthcare.

Why was the arbitration kept secret?
Both sides cited confidentiality agreements and commercial sensitivity to justify restricting public access to the evidence and submissions.

Who is Nadine Delicata?
She is the former president of Steward Healthcare Malta, later appointed as a consultant within the Ministry for Health.

Why was Delicata’s employment contract significant?
The government requested her full contract as evidence, prompting the tribunal to order Steward to disclose it unredacted to government lawyers.

Who is Armin Ernst?
He served as CEO of both VGH and Steward Malta and played a key role in facilitating the transfer of the concession.

What did Ernst’s emails reveal?
His internal emails described severe financial and management problems within VGH, even before Steward took over.

What was Project Haven?
A confidential meeting in London between government and Steward representatives shortly after signing an NDA, likely linked to the acquisition process.

Did the tribunal find wrongdoing?
The tribunal did not assign criminal liability but provided factual findings highlighting procedural and operational concerns.

Why is the case still relevant today?
Its findings influence ongoing legal proceedings and discussions about transparency in Malta’s public contracts.

What happens next?
Further legal and political scrutiny is expected, particularly as Malta reviews its framework for future public-private healthcare projects.