Abstract Post-award settlements in investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) remain largely unstudied. One of the reasons for this gap in knowledge is the lack of transparency in the post-award phase of the relationship between investors and host states. The primary objective of this article is to use novel empirical data to explore the transparency gaps and absences in the post-award phase of ISDS. We seek to challenge the prevailing notions of finality of ISDS awards and highlight the need to re-think the end goals of transparency considering the significant public policy implications post-award agreements may engender. The veil of secrecy that continues to shroud the world of post-award settlements raises a number of issues that go to the heart of the ongoing debate about the workings of ISDS, its legitimacy and the role of openness and accountability therein.