International Arbitration: Representative Engagements

AFRICA/MIDDLE EAST

  • A Kuwaiti subcontractor to a major U.S. defense contractor operating in Iraq in connection with multiple disputes arising out of large-scale U.S. government contract. We have submitted multiple breach of contract claims to arbitration under LCIA and AAA/ICDR rules. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • A U.S. multinational hotel company in a dispute between the manager and operator of a property in Dubai, UAE, and the Emrati owners over the management and operation of the hotel. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • A Southern African mining company and its local subsidiary in a dispute with a West African country over the Government's manipulation of the country's exchange rate and imposition of taxes in relation to the companies' multi-million dollar investments in that country. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • A Middle Eastern Bank in relation to a dispute seated in London under the UNCITRAL rules, arising from a management agreement with a major European multinational bank. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • A U.S. hotel company in connection with a bilateral investment treaty dispute arising out of the company's investment in the Egyptian tourism industry. The dispute concerns the alleged breach by the government of the treaty's guarantees of expropriation, fair and equitable treatment and treatment no less favorable than that required by international law. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)

ASIA

  • A U.S. company seeking over US$ 200 million from the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Coca-Cola Export Corporation, and Zeromax Group for breach of contract, unlawful conspiracy, and expropriation of its interest in a successful joint venture in Uzbekistan. The arbitration, in Vienna, is under the rules of the International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber. (ROZ Trading v. Coca-Cola Export Company, Government of Uzbekistan and Zeromax Group)
  • A Bangladeshi company in London-based ICC arbitration proceedings, under English law, against a U.S. company in connection with breach of contract and other claims arising out of a joint venture agreement relating to a port construction project in Bangladesh. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • An Indian company in a Seoul-based ICC arbitration against a Korean company arising out of the latter's investments and business activities in India. The substantive law of the arbitration was the law of India. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • A Chinese chemical manufacturer in an intellectual property dispute with one of the world's largest petroleum companies at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). (Case name withheld for confidentiality)

EUROPE

  • A Cypriot company which invested in two Turkish hydroelectric utilities, both of which had billion-dollar, multi-year concessions to perform generation, transmission, distribution and trading in the Turkish electricity sector. The Republic of Turkey cancelled the concessions and seized all of the related facilities in June 2003. This ICSID arbitration has been brought under the Energy Charter Treaty. (Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Turkey)
  • An Italian investor in connection with multi-million dollar claims against a CIS country under a bilateral investment treaty for unfair and inequitable treatment, discrimination and breaches of customary international law. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)
  • A California company in connection with multi-million dollar claims against a CIS country under a bilateral investment treaty for expropriation, discrimination and unfair and inequitable treatment. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)

LATIN AMERICA

[additional Latin American experience - pdf] [español] [português]

  • The Republic of Bolivia in an ICSID arbitration involving the "Water War" in Cochabamba. After defending the case for nearly four years, and following a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, we reached a "no-pay" settlement for Bolivia. This result was a significant victory for our government client. (Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia)
  • A U.S. company in an ICSID dispute arising out of a legal stability agreement relating to the company's multi-million dollar investments in the Peruvian electricity sector. The dispute arose out of the Peruvian Government's application of a series of unlawful taxes on a retroactive basis. In August 2008, the tribunal found that Peru had violated the guarantee of tax stabilization and the principle of good faith, awarding our Client over US $18 million in damages, plus pre- and post-award interest. (Duke Energy International Peru Investments No 1, Ltd. v. Republic of Peru)
  • A U.S. company in an ICSID dispute relating to the company's multi-million dollar investments in the Ecuadorian electricity sector. The tribunal found in our favor in August 2008 and the total award, including interest, is calculated to be over US $10 million. (Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador)
  • A Brazilian joint venture company in a Paris-based ICC arbitration against a Brazilian state-owned utility arising out of a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) and involving issues related to the construction of a power plant. The dispute involved claims and counterclaims in excess of US$ 1.8 billion, and was one of the first major international arbitrations involving a Brazilian mixed-capital company. (UEG Araucária Ltda. v. COPEL)
  • A U.S. mining company in connection with a multi-million dollar investment dispute in a Central American country under the CAFTA. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)

NAFTA/CAFTA

  • A publicly-held Canadian corporation owning rights in mining claims in the California desert. The claims, brought under the NAFTA, are based on the U.S. Government's alleged expropriation of those rights and breaches of customary international law. (Glamis Gold Ltd. v. USA)
  • A Canadian company and Canadian citizens who are members of the Six Nations Confederacy in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the NAFTA. The claims are based on measures taken by 46 State Governments and six territorial administrations of the U.S. subsequent to a litigation settlement agreement made with large tobacco manufacturers. (Grand River Enterprises et al v. USA)
  • A U.S. mining company in connection with a multi-million dollar investment dispute in a Central American country under the CAFTA. (Case name withheld for confidentiality)