AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $114 billion
DISPUTE: Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation; Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Baker Botts; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Permanent Court of Arbitration (Ad hoc/UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Charles Poncet; Stephen Schwebel
NOTES: A historic trio of cases brought against Russia by the majority shareholders of the defunct Yukos Oil Company. Claimants argue that Russia drove Yukos into bankruptcy through allegedly inflated tax claims in a vendetta against former CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky. In its defense, Russia has argued that its courts properly adjudicated genuine tax offenses. Citing unfair treatment and expropriation in violation of the Energy Charter Treaty, claimants currently seek damages of $114 billion. In November 2009 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction. The case was tried over five weeks in October and November 2012. The arbitrators’ decision is pending. In related cases involving token damages, minority shareholders of Yukos largely persuaded arbitrators of their story, while Yukos management obtained mixed results in the European Court of Human Rights.
DISPUTE: Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation; Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Baker Botts; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Permanent Court of Arbitration (Ad hoc/UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Charles Poncet; Stephen Schwebel
NOTES: A historic trio of cases brought against Russia by the majority shareholders of the defunct Yukos Oil Company. Claimants argue that Russia drove Yukos into bankruptcy through allegedly inflated tax claims in a vendetta against former CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky. In its defense, Russia has argued that its courts properly adjudicated genuine tax offenses. Citing unfair treatment and expropriation in violation of the Energy Charter Treaty, claimants currently seek damages of $114 billion. In November 2009 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction. The case was tried over five weeks in October and November 2012. The arbitrators’ decision is pending. In related cases involving token damages, minority shareholders of Yukos largely persuaded arbitrators of their story, while Yukos management obtained mixed results in the European Court of Human Rights.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $50 billion
DISPUTE: Renée Rose Levy de Levi (France) v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Estudio Paitan & Abogados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Eduardo Zuleta; Raul Vinuesa; Gabrielle Kaufman-Kohler
NOTES: A claim by real estate investors under the France-Peru bilateral investment treaty regarding coastal development rights outside Lima, near the site of a historic battle with Chile. In arguments on jurisdiction, Peru questions what interest in the property was acquired by the claimants and when. The hearing is scheduled for November 2013. A second claim has been brought by Levy regarding a bank investment in Peru.
DISPUTE: Renée Rose Levy de Levi (France) v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Estudio Paitan & Abogados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Eduardo Zuleta; Raul Vinuesa; Gabrielle Kaufman-Kohler
NOTES: A claim by real estate investors under the France-Peru bilateral investment treaty regarding coastal development rights outside Lima, near the site of a historic battle with Chile. In arguments on jurisdiction, Peru questions what interest in the property was acquired by the claimants and when. The hearing is scheduled for November 2013. A second claim has been brought by Levy regarding a bank investment in Peru.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $31.7 billion
DISPUTE: ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. (U.S.), ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. (U.S.), ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. (U.S.), and ConocoPhillips Company (U.S.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Kenneth Keith; L. Yves Fortier; Georges Abi-Saab
NOTES: Following Venezuela’s assertion of greater control over its energy sector, Conoco protested that President Hugo Chavez had expropriated three joint venture projects in Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude reservoirs in the Orinoco Belt and offshore crude reservoirs in the Gulf of Paria. In the absence of an investment treaty between the U.S. and Venezuela, Conoco brought claims under the Venezuelan foreign investment statute and the Netherlands-Venezuela investment treaty. (In two similar cases, brought by affiliates of Exxon Mobil Corporation and CEMEX SAB de CV, arbitrators accepted jurisdiction under the treaty but denied jurisdiction under the investment law, which pleased Venezuela by limiting the years for which claimants may recover damages.) The trial was completed in July 2011 in The Hague, and a decision awaits. A full award with interest could exceed $48 billion.
DISPUTE: ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. (U.S.), ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. (U.S.), ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. (U.S.), and ConocoPhillips Company (U.S.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Kenneth Keith; L. Yves Fortier; Georges Abi-Saab
NOTES: Following Venezuela’s assertion of greater control over its energy sector, Conoco protested that President Hugo Chavez had expropriated three joint venture projects in Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude reservoirs in the Orinoco Belt and offshore crude reservoirs in the Gulf of Paria. In the absence of an investment treaty between the U.S. and Venezuela, Conoco brought claims under the Venezuelan foreign investment statute and the Netherlands-Venezuela investment treaty. (In two similar cases, brought by affiliates of Exxon Mobil Corporation and CEMEX SAB de CV, arbitrators accepted jurisdiction under the treaty but denied jurisdiction under the investment law, which pleased Venezuela by limiting the years for which claimants may recover damages.) The trial was completed in July 2011 in The Hague, and a decision awaits. A full award with interest could exceed $48 billion.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $19 billion
DISPUTE: Chevron Corp. (U.S.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Vaughn Lowe; Horatio Grigera Naon
NOTES: An arbitration designed to protect Chevron from the epic environmental trial in the Ecuadorian Amazon, where plaintiffs won a $19 billion judgment in February 2011, which they seek to enforce in Argentina, Brazil, and Canada. In the underlying suit, local residents alleged that Chevron’s predecessor Texaco Inc. devastated the area through its oil operations in Ecuador from 1972 to 1992. Chevron has filed 23 actions for U.S. discovery in aid of arbitration, and a New York civil action against the plaintiffs team for racketeering, where it argued that the verdict was procured by fraud and corruption. Ecuador and the plaintiffs dispute Chevron’s allegations. In fall 2012, the arbitrators held a first-phase trial on the merits, to consider whether Ecuador breached a release agreement signed with Texaco in return for a limited cleanup by the oil company. At a second trial in January 2014, they are to consider whether Ecuador’s courts deprived Chevron of the effective means of defense guaranteed by the U.S.–Ecuador investment treaty, or if they effected a denial of justice under international law. Meanwhile, the parties have clashed over interim measures. In February 2011 the tribunal ordered Ecuador to take all measures at its disposal to suspend enforcement of the judgment. The Ecuadorian judgment arrived five days later. In February 2012 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction, while strengthening and particularizing its order to suspend enforcement. The Ecuadorian judgment was finalized five months later. In February 2013 the tribunal found that Ecuador had violated its interim measures and ordered Ecuador to explain why it should not compensate Chevron for any harm caused. Ecuador has asked the tribunal to reconsider its conclusion that Ecuador violated its interim orders. The parties are briefing both questions this summer. Chevron would like Ecuador to cover its attorney fees, as well as any damages collected by the plaintiffs.
DISPUTE: Chevron Corp. (U.S.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Vaughn Lowe; Horatio Grigera Naon
NOTES: An arbitration designed to protect Chevron from the epic environmental trial in the Ecuadorian Amazon, where plaintiffs won a $19 billion judgment in February 2011, which they seek to enforce in Argentina, Brazil, and Canada. In the underlying suit, local residents alleged that Chevron’s predecessor Texaco Inc. devastated the area through its oil operations in Ecuador from 1972 to 1992. Chevron has filed 23 actions for U.S. discovery in aid of arbitration, and a New York civil action against the plaintiffs team for racketeering, where it argued that the verdict was procured by fraud and corruption. Ecuador and the plaintiffs dispute Chevron’s allegations. In fall 2012, the arbitrators held a first-phase trial on the merits, to consider whether Ecuador breached a release agreement signed with Texaco in return for a limited cleanup by the oil company. At a second trial in January 2014, they are to consider whether Ecuador’s courts deprived Chevron of the effective means of defense guaranteed by the U.S.–Ecuador investment treaty, or if they effected a denial of justice under international law. Meanwhile, the parties have clashed over interim measures. In February 2011 the tribunal ordered Ecuador to take all measures at its disposal to suspend enforcement of the judgment. The Ecuadorian judgment arrived five days later. In February 2012 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction, while strengthening and particularizing its order to suspend enforcement. The Ecuadorian judgment was finalized five months later. In February 2013 the tribunal found that Ecuador had violated its interim measures and ordered Ecuador to explain why it should not compensate Chevron for any harm caused. Ecuador has asked the tribunal to reconsider its conclusion that Ecuador violated its interim orders. The parties are briefing both questions this summer. Chevron would like Ecuador to cover its attorney fees, as well as any damages collected by the plaintiffs.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $16.8 billion
DISPUTE: Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings B.V. (U.S.), Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd., and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gilbert Guillaume; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri
NOTES: A claim under the Venezuela-Netherlands BIT for the expropriation of two joint venture projects in Venezuela’s heavy crude sector, resulting from governmental fiscal measures and restructuring of the petroleum industry. In June 2010 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction under the Dutch treaty—but accepted Venezuela’s argument that its domestic investment law does not contain a consent to ICSID jurisdiction. This led to a dismissal of all claims that arose before Mobil established a Dutch holding company in 2006; as a result, potential damages were reduced. The case was tried February 2012 in Paris, and the decision is pending. Exxon was disappointed in the $747 million award resulting from the parallel contract arbitration, and is pinning its hopes on this one.
DISPUTE: Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings B.V. (U.S.), Mobil Cerro Negro Holding Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd., and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gilbert Guillaume; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri
NOTES: A claim under the Venezuela-Netherlands BIT for the expropriation of two joint venture projects in Venezuela’s heavy crude sector, resulting from governmental fiscal measures and restructuring of the petroleum industry. In June 2010 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction under the Dutch treaty—but accepted Venezuela’s argument that its domestic investment law does not contain a consent to ICSID jurisdiction. This led to a dismissal of all claims that arose before Mobil established a Dutch holding company in 2006; as a result, potential damages were reduced. The case was tried February 2012 in Paris, and the decision is pending. Exxon was disappointed in the $747 million award resulting from the parallel contract arbitration, and is pinning its hopes on this one.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $16 billion
DISPUTE: Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E. (Egypt) v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Essex Court Chambers
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Lalive
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Bernardo Cremades; L. Yves Fortier; Pierre Marie Dupuy
NOTES: A UNCITRAL arbitration brought under the Egypt-Algeria BIT alleging unfair treatment and/or expropriation of Orascom’s Algerian mobile phone business, Djezzy. The respondent disputes the allegations. In February 2013 the tribunal declined to bifurcate the proceedings. A related treaty claim has been brought by Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l.
DISPUTE: Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E. (Egypt) v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Essex Court Chambers
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Lalive
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Bernardo Cremades; L. Yves Fortier; Pierre Marie Dupuy
NOTES: A UNCITRAL arbitration brought under the Egypt-Algeria BIT alleging unfair treatment and/or expropriation of Orascom’s Algerian mobile phone business, Djezzy. The respondent disputes the allegations. In February 2013 the tribunal declined to bifurcate the proceedings. A related treaty claim has been brought by Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $10.5 billion
DISPUTE: Repsol S.A. (Spain) and Repsol Butano S.A. v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Uría Menéndez; Marval O’Farrell Mairal
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Francisco Orrego Vicuña
NOTES: In December 2012 Spain’s leading oil company filed an arbitration under the Spain-Argentina BIT over Argentina’s April 2012 nationalization of Repsol’s 51 percent stake in Argentina’s largest oil company, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales S.A., better known as YPF, and of Repsol Butano’s 51 percent stake in YPF Gas. This was arguably the highest-profile direct expropriation in a decade. The respondent disputes Repsol’s claims.
DISPUTE: Repsol S.A. (Spain) and Repsol Butano S.A. v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Uría Menéndez; Marval O’Farrell Mairal
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Francisco Orrego Vicuña
NOTES: In December 2012 Spain’s leading oil company filed an arbitration under the Spain-Argentina BIT over Argentina’s April 2012 nationalization of Repsol’s 51 percent stake in Argentina’s largest oil company, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales S.A., better known as YPF, and of Repsol Butano’s 51 percent stake in YPF Gas. This was arguably the highest-profile direct expropriation in a decade. The respondent disputes Repsol’s claims.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $10.1 billion
DISPUTE: Libananco Holdings Co. Limited (Cyprus) v. Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring; Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Cosar Avukatlik Burosu
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C., and Paris
ARBITRATORS: Michael Hwang; Henri Alvarez; Frank Berman; Andrés Rigo Sureda; Hans Danelius; Eduardo Silva Romero
NOTES: In 2003, Turkey canceled two power concessions held by the family of Turkish businessman and politician Cem Uzan. While Uzan has maintained that his family’s business empire was dismantled for political reasons, Turkey says that Uzan is a fraudster, and Libananco his stalking horse. In September 2011 the tribunal declined jurisdiction because Libananco could not prove that ownership of shares in the companies had been transferred to Libananco before Turkey canceled the concessions. The arbitrators also ordered the claimant to pay $15 million of Turkey’s $35.7 million in legal fees, expert fees, and costs. In January 2012 an ICSID review committee heard Libananco’s argument that the award should be annulled based on a manifest excess of power by the tribunal and a serious departure from fundamental rules of procedure. A central element of the argument for annulment was the allegation that Turkey intercepted privileged emails from the Uzans to their counsel at Crowell & Moring, as part of a criminal investigation and surveillance program that Turkey acknowledges having conducted. In May 2013, exactly ten years after the Uzans were first accused of bank fraud, the petition for annulment was denied. This appears to be the Uzans’ last gasp in treaty arbitration. They or their proxies have lost on jurisdictional or procedural grounds four arbitrations against Turkey collectively valued at about $39 billion. In March 2011, they lost a $165 billion European Court of Human Rights claim on the merits.
DISPUTE: Libananco Holdings Co. Limited (Cyprus) v. Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring; Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Cosar Avukatlik Burosu
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C., and Paris
ARBITRATORS: Michael Hwang; Henri Alvarez; Frank Berman; Andrés Rigo Sureda; Hans Danelius; Eduardo Silva Romero
NOTES: In 2003, Turkey canceled two power concessions held by the family of Turkish businessman and politician Cem Uzan. While Uzan has maintained that his family’s business empire was dismantled for political reasons, Turkey says that Uzan is a fraudster, and Libananco his stalking horse. In September 2011 the tribunal declined jurisdiction because Libananco could not prove that ownership of shares in the companies had been transferred to Libananco before Turkey canceled the concessions. The arbitrators also ordered the claimant to pay $15 million of Turkey’s $35.7 million in legal fees, expert fees, and costs. In January 2012 an ICSID review committee heard Libananco’s argument that the award should be annulled based on a manifest excess of power by the tribunal and a serious departure from fundamental rules of procedure. A central element of the argument for annulment was the allegation that Turkey intercepted privileged emails from the Uzans to their counsel at Crowell & Moring, as part of a criminal investigation and surveillance program that Turkey acknowledges having conducted. In May 2013, exactly ten years after the Uzans were first accused of bank fraud, the petition for annulment was denied. This appears to be the Uzans’ last gasp in treaty arbitration. They or their proxies have lost on jurisdictional or procedural grounds four arbitrations against Turkey collectively valued at about $39 billion. In March 2011, they lost a $165 billion European Court of Human Rights claim on the merits.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $7 billion
DISPUTE: Renée Rose de Levy de Levi (France) v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Estudio Paitan & Abogados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Rodrigo Oreamuno; Bernard Hanotiau; Joaquim Morales Godoy
NOTES: Peru’s bank regulator liquidated Banco Nuevo Mundo during that nation’s financial crisis of 1999. In a claim filed under the France-Peru investment treaty, shareholder Levy argues that the bank was still solvent, and the regulator acted improperly. In arguments on jurisdiction, Peru suggested that Peruvian members of the Levy family transferred share ownership to French citizen Renée Rose only to create BIT jurisdiction, five years after the claim arose. The hearing was held in November 2012.
DISPUTE: Renée Rose de Levy de Levi (France) v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Estudio Paitan & Abogados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Rodrigo Oreamuno; Bernard Hanotiau; Joaquim Morales Godoy
NOTES: Peru’s bank regulator liquidated Banco Nuevo Mundo during that nation’s financial crisis of 1999. In a claim filed under the France-Peru investment treaty, shareholder Levy argues that the bank was still solvent, and the regulator acted improperly. In arguments on jurisdiction, Peru suggested that Peruvian members of the Levy family transferred share ownership to French citizen Renée Rose only to create BIT jurisdiction, five years after the claim arose. The hearing was held in November 2012.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $5 billion
DISPUTE: Anatolie Stati (Moldova), Gabriel Stati (Moldova), Ascom Group SA (Moldova), and Terra Trading Ltd. (Moldova) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/ECT/Paris
ARBITRATORS: David Haigh; Sergei Lebedev; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel
NOTES: The Moldovan investors held three contracts for the exploration or extraction of hydrocarbons in western Kazakhstan. They argue that the state violated the Energy Charter Treaty by canceling the contracts under false pretenses and handing the assets to state-owned NC KazMunaiGas JSC, as well as failing to protect key personnel. Kazakhstan disputes that the claimants qualify under the treaty as “investors” with “investments” and argues that it was entitled to terminate the licenses due to material noncompliance by the claimants. The case on liability was tried in October 2012, and on damages in January and May 2013.
DISPUTE: Anatolie Stati (Moldova), Gabriel Stati (Moldova), Ascom Group SA (Moldova), and Terra Trading Ltd. (Moldova) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/ECT/Paris
ARBITRATORS: David Haigh; Sergei Lebedev; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel
NOTES: The Moldovan investors held three contracts for the exploration or extraction of hydrocarbons in western Kazakhstan. They argue that the state violated the Energy Charter Treaty by canceling the contracts under false pretenses and handing the assets to state-owned NC KazMunaiGas JSC, as well as failing to protect key personnel. Kazakhstan disputes that the claimants qualify under the treaty as “investors” with “investments” and argues that it was entitled to terminate the licenses due to material noncompliance by the claimants. The case on liability was tried in October 2012, and on damages in January and May 2013.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $5 billion
DISPUTE: Vattenfall AB (Sweden) v. Federal Republic of Germany
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Mannheimer Swartling; Luther
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: McDermott Will & Emery
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Albert Jan van den Berg; Vaughan Lowe; Charles Brower
NOTES: Germany’s phase-out of nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster is being challenged by a Swedish utility with two nuclear power plants in Germany. A previous Energy Charter Treaty claim by Vattenfall against Germany, based on construction delays and regulation of a coal-fired power plant, settled in early 2011.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $5 billion
DISPUTE: Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l. (Luxembourg) v. The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Brigitte Stern; Albert Jan van den Berg
NOTES: In November 2012 a Luxembourg-based affiliate of Egyptian mobile phone operator Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E. filed a request for arbitration under the Algeria-Belgium/Luxembourg investment treaty, based on taxation and customs measures taken by Algeria against Orascom’s Djezzy network, and the commencement of a formal nationalization process. A related treaty claim has been filed by Orascom Telecom.
DISPUTE: Vattenfall AB (Sweden) v. Federal Republic of Germany
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Mannheimer Swartling; Luther
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: McDermott Will & Emery
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Albert Jan van den Berg; Vaughan Lowe; Charles Brower
NOTES: Germany’s phase-out of nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster is being challenged by a Swedish utility with two nuclear power plants in Germany. A previous Energy Charter Treaty claim by Vattenfall against Germany, based on construction delays and regulation of a coal-fired power plant, settled in early 2011.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $5 billion
DISPUTE: Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l. (Luxembourg) v. The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Brigitte Stern; Albert Jan van den Berg
NOTES: In November 2012 a Luxembourg-based affiliate of Egyptian mobile phone operator Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E. filed a request for arbitration under the Algeria-Belgium/Luxembourg investment treaty, based on taxation and customs measures taken by Algeria against Orascom’s Djezzy network, and the commencement of a formal nationalization process. A related treaty claim has been filed by Orascom Telecom.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $3.4 billion
DISPUTE: Occidental Petroleum Corporation (U.S.) and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Squire Sanders; Dechert; Attorney General of Ecuador
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; David Williams; Brigitte Stern
NOTES: Occidental won an earlier treaty arbitration with Ecuador over value-added tax in 2004. In a step that the company perceived as retaliatory, Ecuador seized its concession on May 15, 2006. Two days later, Occidental filed this arbitration. In October 2012 the tribunal found unanimously that—although Occidental had breached Ecuadorian law by farming out an economic interest in its oil concession to Encana Corporation without government approval—Ecuador’s termination of the contract was disproportionate, expropriatory, and unfair and inequitable. In addition, the arbitrators found that Ecuador’s 2006 windfall profits tax was unfair and inequitable. Occidental received a record BIT award of $1.77 billion plus interest (totaling $2.3 billion as of the date of the award), with arbitrator Stern dissenting on the level of damages. Forty percent would go to Encana’s successor in Ecuador, Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd., which is jointly owned by China National Petroleum Corporation and Sinopec Corp. Ecuador is seeking an annulment.
DISPUTE: Occidental Petroleum Corporation (U.S.) and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Squire Sanders; Dechert; Attorney General of Ecuador
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; David Williams; Brigitte Stern
NOTES: Occidental won an earlier treaty arbitration with Ecuador over value-added tax in 2004. In a step that the company perceived as retaliatory, Ecuador seized its concession on May 15, 2006. Two days later, Occidental filed this arbitration. In October 2012 the tribunal found unanimously that—although Occidental had breached Ecuadorian law by farming out an economic interest in its oil concession to Encana Corporation without government approval—Ecuador’s termination of the contract was disproportionate, expropriatory, and unfair and inequitable. In addition, the arbitrators found that Ecuador’s 2006 windfall profits tax was unfair and inequitable. Occidental received a record BIT award of $1.77 billion plus interest (totaling $2.3 billion as of the date of the award), with arbitrator Stern dissenting on the level of damages. Forty percent would go to Encana’s successor in Ecuador, Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd., which is jointly owned by China National Petroleum Corporation and Sinopec Corp. Ecuador is seeking an annulment.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $3.2 billion
DISPUTE: Crystallex International Corporation (Canada) v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Laurent Lévy; John Gotanda; Florentino Feliciano
NOTES: An ICSID Additional Facility claim filed in 2011 by a Canadian miner under the Canada/Venezuela BIT, arising out of the alleged expropriation of one of the largest untapped gold mines in the world. The respondent disputes the claims. The Las Cristinas mine also inspired an earlier (failed) claim by Vannessa Ventures.
DISPUTE: Crystallex International Corporation (Canada) v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Laurent Lévy; John Gotanda; Florentino Feliciano
NOTES: An ICSID Additional Facility claim filed in 2011 by a Canadian miner under the Canada/Venezuela BIT, arising out of the alleged expropriation of one of the largest untapped gold mines in the world. The respondent disputes the claims. The Las Cristinas mine also inspired an earlier (failed) claim by Vannessa Ventures.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $3 billion
DISPUTE: Maersk Olie Algeriet, A/S (Denmark) v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Kamal Hossain; David Williams
NOTES: A dispute under the Algeria-Denmark BIT, concerning the effect of Algeria’s new Tax on Exceptional Profits on a project in the Algerian petroleum industry. The trial was held in November 2011 and the case was settled in March 2012, together with a commercial arbitration brought by Maersk and Anadarko Algeria Co. LLC. The settlement provided for extra deliveries of crude oil to Maersk worth about $920 million over the following year, and a moderate increase in Maersk’s share of oil production for the remaining term of the contract. Anadarko received $1.8 billion in crude oil shipments over the following year, and adjustments to the contract that will provide Anadarko with additional oil worth $2.6 billion over the term of the project.
DISPUTE: Maersk Olie Algeriet, A/S (Denmark) v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Kamal Hossain; David Williams
NOTES: A dispute under the Algeria-Denmark BIT, concerning the effect of Algeria’s new Tax on Exceptional Profits on a project in the Algerian petroleum industry. The trial was held in November 2011 and the case was settled in March 2012, together with a commercial arbitration brought by Maersk and Anadarko Algeria Co. LLC. The settlement provided for extra deliveries of crude oil to Maersk worth about $920 million over the following year, and a moderate increase in Maersk’s share of oil production for the remaining term of the contract. Anadarko received $1.8 billion in crude oil shipments over the following year, and adjustments to the contract that will provide Anadarko with additional oil worth $2.6 billion over the term of the project.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $3 billion
DISPUTE: Perenco Ecuador Limited (Ecuador) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dechert; Attorney General of Ecuador
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Neil Kaplan; J. Christopher Thomas; Peter Tomka
NOTES: France’s Perenco S.A. is challenging Ecuador’s 2006 imposition of a windfall tax on energy producers, and its eventual takeover of the oil fields Perenco operated with Burlington Resources (which has filed a parallel claim). Perenco brought this action in 2008, arguing that the windfall tax breaches the France-Ecuador BIT and the stabilization pact in their production sharing contract. In March 2009 the state began seizing and auctioning Perenco’s crude oil in order to pay accumulated assessments. In May 2009 the tribunal ordered Ecuador to refrain from pursuing any action to collect the disputed amounts—but the state took the position that ICSID interim measures are nonbinding, and continued its collection efforts. In July 2009 Ecuador took over the fields and in 2010 terminated the consortium’s contracts. In June 2011 the tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction under the contracts at issue, but deferred the questions of treaty jurisdiction. A hearing on liability and the remaining jurisdictional issues took place in The Hague in November 2012. A hearing on Ecuador’s counterclaims—alleging environmental damage and poor operations of the oil blocks—will be held in September 2013.
DISPUTE: Perenco Ecuador Limited (Ecuador) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dechert; Attorney General of Ecuador
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Neil Kaplan; J. Christopher Thomas; Peter Tomka
NOTES: France’s Perenco S.A. is challenging Ecuador’s 2006 imposition of a windfall tax on energy producers, and its eventual takeover of the oil fields Perenco operated with Burlington Resources (which has filed a parallel claim). Perenco brought this action in 2008, arguing that the windfall tax breaches the France-Ecuador BIT and the stabilization pact in their production sharing contract. In March 2009 the state began seizing and auctioning Perenco’s crude oil in order to pay accumulated assessments. In May 2009 the tribunal ordered Ecuador to refrain from pursuing any action to collect the disputed amounts—but the state took the position that ICSID interim measures are nonbinding, and continued its collection efforts. In July 2009 Ecuador took over the fields and in 2010 terminated the consortium’s contracts. In June 2011 the tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction under the contracts at issue, but deferred the questions of treaty jurisdiction. A hearing on liability and the remaining jurisdictional issues took place in The Hague in November 2012. A hearing on Ecuador’s counterclaims—alleging environmental damage and poor operations of the oil blocks—will be held in September 2013.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $3 billion
DISPUTE: Rusoro Mining Limited (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Juan Fernández Armesto; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Bruno Simma
NOTES: Rusoro was among the last private miners left standing in Venezuela. Now it’s just another Canadian claimant suing under the Canada/Venezuela BIT over the seizure of gold mining rights. The respondent disputes the allegations. At the time of it was nationalized in 2012, Rusoro had subsidiaries holding a total of 58 mining concessions and contracts for the exploration and exploitation of alluvial and vein gold and other minerals in the southern state of Bolívar.
DISPUTE: Rusoro Mining Limited (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Juan Fernández Armesto; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Bruno Simma
NOTES: Rusoro was among the last private miners left standing in Venezuela. Now it’s just another Canadian claimant suing under the Canada/Venezuela BIT over the seizure of gold mining rights. The respondent disputes the allegations. At the time of it was nationalized in 2012, Rusoro had subsidiaries holding a total of 58 mining concessions and contracts for the exploration and exploitation of alluvial and vein gold and other minerals in the southern state of Bolívar.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2.67 billion
DISPUTE: Giovanna a Beccara et al. v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: White & Case; Pérez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen, Martínez de Hoz; Legance Studio Legale Associato
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Procuracion del Tesoro de Argentina
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Santiago Torres Bernardez; Albert Jan van den Berg
NOTES: A claim by Italian bondholders who declined to accept settlements offered by Argentina in the aftermath of its sovereign debt default. Originally, more than 180,000 investors alleged unfair and discriminatory treatment and expropriation under the Italy-Argentina investment treaty. A new bond exchange by Argentina in 2010 peeled away two-thirds of the claimants. The largest arbitration to arise out of Argentina’s crisis, it was also the first treaty claim to challenge a sovereign restructuring. In August 2011 a divided tribunal asserted jurisdiction—finding that sovereign bonds are protected investments, and green-lighting the first mass claim in investment arbitration history. While the World Bank tribunal slowly works out the logistics of trying such a claim, the New York federal courts have dramatically ruled in favor of institutional bondholders like Elliott Associates. The Beccara claimants—who hedged their bets from the start by filing and then staying lawsuits in federal court—theoretically stand to benefit from any anti-Argentina precedent that survives final appeal in New York.
DISPUTE: Giovanna a Beccara et al. v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: White & Case; Pérez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen, Martínez de Hoz; Legance Studio Legale Associato
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Procuracion del Tesoro de Argentina
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Santiago Torres Bernardez; Albert Jan van den Berg
NOTES: A claim by Italian bondholders who declined to accept settlements offered by Argentina in the aftermath of its sovereign debt default. Originally, more than 180,000 investors alleged unfair and discriminatory treatment and expropriation under the Italy-Argentina investment treaty. A new bond exchange by Argentina in 2010 peeled away two-thirds of the claimants. The largest arbitration to arise out of Argentina’s crisis, it was also the first treaty claim to challenge a sovereign restructuring. In August 2011 a divided tribunal asserted jurisdiction—finding that sovereign bonds are protected investments, and green-lighting the first mass claim in investment arbitration history. While the World Bank tribunal slowly works out the logistics of trying such a claim, the New York federal courts have dramatically ruled in favor of institutional bondholders like Elliott Associates. The Beccara claimants—who hedged their bets from the start by filing and then staying lawsuits in federal court—theoretically stand to benefit from any anti-Argentina precedent that survives final appeal in New York.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2.5 billion
DISPUTE: Gold Reserve Inc. (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: David Williams; Piero Bernardini; Pierre-Marie Dupuy
NOTES: Canadian miner Gold Reserve complains that following issuance of a construction permit for the Las Brisas project, one of the world’s largest undeveloped gold and copper mines, Venezuela improperly delayed the commencement of construction, revoked the construction permit, terminated the concession agreements, and eventually took physical control of the mining property just days after Gold Reserve filed for arbitration in 2009. The respondent disputes Gold Reserve’s claims. The merits hearing took place in February 2012.
DISPUTE: Gold Reserve Inc. (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: David Williams; Piero Bernardini; Pierre-Marie Dupuy
NOTES: Canadian miner Gold Reserve complains that following issuance of a construction permit for the Las Brisas project, one of the world’s largest undeveloped gold and copper mines, Venezuela improperly delayed the commencement of construction, revoked the construction permit, terminated the concession agreements, and eventually took physical control of the mining property just days after Gold Reserve filed for arbitration in 2009. The respondent disputes Gold Reserve’s claims. The merits hearing took place in February 2012.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2.5 billion
DISPUTE: LSF-KEB Holdings SCA, LSF SLF Holdings SCA, HL Holdings SCA, and Kukdong Holdings I SCA et al. (Belgium and Luxembourg) v. Republic of Korea
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin; Shin & Kim
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Bae, Kim & Lee
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Charles Brower; Brigitte Stern
NOTES: Dallas-based Lone Star Funds says that South Korea channeled public hostility toward their successful private equity investment in Korea Exchange Bank, which the Korean press labeled “meoktwi,” or eat-and-run foreign capitalism. Through its Belgian subsidiaries, Lone Star alleges that Korean bank regulators repeatedly blocked attempts to sell its interest in the bank, and Korean tax authorities violated the guarantee of fair treatment provided in the BIT between Belgium and South Korea. The respondent disputes Lone Star’s claim. This is the first investment treaty claim against Korea, and the largest ever filed against an East Asian state.
DISPUTE: LSF-KEB Holdings SCA, LSF SLF Holdings SCA, HL Holdings SCA, and Kukdong Holdings I SCA et al. (Belgium and Luxembourg) v. Republic of Korea
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin; Shin & Kim
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Bae, Kim & Lee
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Charles Brower; Brigitte Stern
NOTES: Dallas-based Lone Star Funds says that South Korea channeled public hostility toward their successful private equity investment in Korea Exchange Bank, which the Korean press labeled “meoktwi,” or eat-and-run foreign capitalism. Through its Belgian subsidiaries, Lone Star alleges that Korean bank regulators repeatedly blocked attempts to sell its interest in the bank, and Korean tax authorities violated the guarantee of fair treatment provided in the BIT between Belgium and South Korea. The respondent disputes Lone Star’s claim. This is the first investment treaty claim against Korea, and the largest ever filed against an East Asian state.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2.5 billion
DISPUTE: Mobile Telesystems OJSC (Russia) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Boies, Schiller & Flexner
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATOR: W. Michael Reisman
NOTES: Russia’s leading cellphone group, MTS is bringing an ICSID additional facility claim based on Uzbekistan’s revocation of the telecommunications licenses of its Uzdunrobita subsidiary, the imposition of fines, detention of Uzdunrobita’s employees, and seizure of the company’s assets. The respondent disputes MTS’s claims. The request for arbitration was registered in November 2012.
DISPUTE: Mobile Telesystems OJSC (Russia) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Boies, Schiller & Flexner
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATOR: W. Michael Reisman
NOTES: Russia’s leading cellphone group, MTS is bringing an ICSID additional facility claim based on Uzbekistan’s revocation of the telecommunications licenses of its Uzdunrobita subsidiary, the imposition of fines, detention of Uzdunrobita’s employees, and seizure of the company’s assets. The respondent disputes MTS’s claims. The request for arbitration was registered in November 2012.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: Billions
DISPUTE: Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Hellenic Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Not yet known
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Tribunal not yet constituted
NOTES: Nationalized by Cyprus in mid-2012 because of its exposure to Greek debt, Cyprus Popular Bank filed a notice of dispute in November 2012, arguing that Greece’s capital and liquidity assistance to Greek banks in early 2012 discriminated against foreign investors in violation of the Cyprus-Greece BIT. This case will test the power of investment claims in the context of sovereign restructuring, as well as the arbitrability of claims between one E.U. member state and an investor controlled by another. Turning the tables, Greece’s Marfin Investment Group announced in January that it planned to bring an arbitration against Cyprus for nationalizing its stake in Cyprus Popular.
DISPUTE: Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Hellenic Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Not yet known
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Tribunal not yet constituted
NOTES: Nationalized by Cyprus in mid-2012 because of its exposure to Greek debt, Cyprus Popular Bank filed a notice of dispute in November 2012, arguing that Greece’s capital and liquidity assistance to Greek banks in early 2012 discriminated against foreign investors in violation of the Cyprus-Greece BIT. This case will test the power of investment claims in the context of sovereign restructuring, as well as the arbitrability of claims between one E.U. member state and an investor controlled by another. Turning the tables, Greece’s Marfin Investment Group announced in January that it planned to bring an arbitration against Cyprus for nationalizing its stake in Cyprus Popular.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: Billions
DISPUTE: Philip Morris Asia Ltd (Hong Kong) v. Commonwealth of Australia
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin: Winston & Strawn
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dentons; Australian Government Solicitor
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL case administered by PCA/
Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel; Gabrielle Kaufmann–Kohler; Donald McRae
NOTES: Philip Morris argues that Australia’s “plain packaging” regulations for tobacco products deprive the company of its intellectual property rights and the use of its valuable brands, in violation of the investment agreement between Hong Kong and Australia. Australia responds that the measures are a legitimate exercise of its regulatory authority to protect the health of its citizens. Australia also argues that the claim is an abuse of the treaty because Philip Morris acquired its investment after the plain packaging regulations were announced. Australia’s tobacco policy has also been challenged in the WTO by Ukraine, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. Philip Morris has filed a similar treaty claim against Uruguay. Both treaty claims are at the jurisdictional stage.
DISPUTE: Philip Morris Asia Ltd (Hong Kong) v. Commonwealth of Australia
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin: Winston & Strawn
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dentons; Australian Government Solicitor
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL case administered by PCA/
Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel; Gabrielle Kaufmann–Kohler; Donald McRae
NOTES: Philip Morris argues that Australia’s “plain packaging” regulations for tobacco products deprive the company of its intellectual property rights and the use of its valuable brands, in violation of the investment agreement between Hong Kong and Australia. Australia responds that the measures are a legitimate exercise of its regulatory authority to protect the health of its citizens. Australia also argues that the claim is an abuse of the treaty because Philip Morris acquired its investment after the plain packaging regulations were announced. Australia’s tobacco policy has also been challenged in the WTO by Ukraine, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. Philip Morris has filed a similar treaty claim against Uruguay. Both treaty claims are at the jurisdictional stage.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2 billion
DISPUTE: Burlington Resources Inc. (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; King & Spalding; Paz Horowitz
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dechert
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Brigitte Stern; Francisco Orrego Vicuña
NOTES: Burlington is one of several energy companies to challenge Ecuador’s Law No. 42, a windfall levy slapped on “excess energy profits.” In June 2010 arbitrators asserted jurisdiction over certain claims, while declining to hear others because the U.S.–Ecuador BIT applies only in limited ways to “tax” measures by a state. In December 2012 they ruled in Burlington’s favor on liability. In August the tribunal will hear arguments on damages as well as Ecuador’s environmental counterclaim, which alleges that Burlington contaminated two oil-producing blocks in the Amazon region of Ecuador.
DISPUTE: Burlington Resources Inc. (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; King & Spalding; Paz Horowitz
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dechert
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Brigitte Stern; Francisco Orrego Vicuña
NOTES: Burlington is one of several energy companies to challenge Ecuador’s Law No. 42, a windfall levy slapped on “excess energy profits.” In June 2010 arbitrators asserted jurisdiction over certain claims, while declining to hear others because the U.S.–Ecuador BIT applies only in limited ways to “tax” measures by a state. In December 2012 they ruled in Burlington’s favor on liability. In August the tribunal will hear arguments on damages as well as Ecuador’s environmental counterclaim, which alleges that Burlington contaminated two oil-producing blocks in the Amazon region of Ecuador.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2 billion
DISPUTE: Caratube International Oil Company LLP (U.S.) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Derains & Gharavi; Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Gavan Griffith; Kamal Hossain; Hans Danelius; Juan Fernandez-Armesto; Cecil W. M. Abraham
NOTES: Caratube claims that Kazakhstan expropriated its long-term contract to explore and develop hydrocarbons in the Aktobe region of the country. In August 2010 a federal court in the District of Columbia declined Caratube’s motion for discovery in aid of arbitration under 28 U.S.C. section 1782. After a February 2011 trial, the case was dismissed in June 2012 for lack of jurisdiction. An annulment petition is pending.
DISPUTE: Caratube International Oil Company LLP (U.S.) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Derains & Gharavi; Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Gavan Griffith; Kamal Hossain; Hans Danelius; Juan Fernandez-Armesto; Cecil W. M. Abraham
NOTES: Caratube claims that Kazakhstan expropriated its long-term contract to explore and develop hydrocarbons in the Aktobe region of the country. In August 2010 a federal court in the District of Columbia declined Caratube’s motion for discovery in aid of arbitration under 28 U.S.C. section 1782. After a February 2011 trial, the case was dismissed in June 2012 for lack of jurisdiction. An annulment petition is pending.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2 billion
DISPUTE: Agip Karachaganak B.V. (the Netherlands), BG Karachaganak LTD. (U.K.), Chevron International Petroleum Company (U.S.), Lukoil Overseas Karachaganak B.V. (the Netherlands), and Karachaganak Petroleum Operating B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Republic of Kazakhstan and SC NC KazMunaiGas
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATOR: V.V. Veeder
NOTES: Investors developing the Karachaganak oil field sued Kazakhstan under the Energy Charter Treaty, the U.S.–Kazakhstan investment treaty, and the production sharing agreement. The companies asserted that Kazakhstan breached Kazakh laws and the stabilization pact in the contract by imposing various taxes and customs duties. Settled with parallel contract arbitration in June 2012. By the terms of settlement, the investors agreed to transfer 5 percent of the project (worth $1 billion) to the Kazakh national oil company NC KazMunaiGas JSC; and KMG agreed to purchase an additional 5 percent for $1 billion.
DISPUTE: Agip Karachaganak B.V. (the Netherlands), BG Karachaganak LTD. (U.K.), Chevron International Petroleum Company (U.S.), Lukoil Overseas Karachaganak B.V. (the Netherlands), and Karachaganak Petroleum Operating B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Republic of Kazakhstan and SC NC KazMunaiGas
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATOR: V.V. Veeder
NOTES: Investors developing the Karachaganak oil field sued Kazakhstan under the Energy Charter Treaty, the U.S.–Kazakhstan investment treaty, and the production sharing agreement. The companies asserted that Kazakhstan breached Kazakh laws and the stabilization pact in the contract by imposing various taxes and customs duties. Settled with parallel contract arbitration in June 2012. By the terms of settlement, the investors agreed to transfer 5 percent of the project (worth $1 billion) to the Kazakh national oil company NC KazMunaiGas JSC; and KMG agreed to purchase an additional 5 percent for $1 billion.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: Up to $1.8 billion
DISPUTE: Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep (Nigeria) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Alegeh & Co
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Hamad Gharavi; Nahil El Araby
NOTES: Shell claimed that the Nigerian government breached the protections of the Nigeria-Netherlands BIT when the government ordered that Shell lose its rights under a production-sharing contract between Shell Nigeria and Nigeria’s state petroleum company (NNPC) and be replaced by Malabu Oil & Gas Limited, which is allegedly controlled by a former petroleum minister. The case was discontinued in August 2011, when Nigeria agreed to allocate the oil block to a joint venture of Shell and ENI for a payment of about $1.1 billion. Nigeria subsequently paid the same amount to Malabu. Nigeria’s attorney general stated in May 2012 that the claimants “agreed to pay Malabu through the federal government acting as an obligator,” prompting a protest by the transparency NGO Global Witness. The claimants have maintained that their agreement was only with the Nigerian government.
DISPUTE: Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep (Nigeria) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Alegeh & Co
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Hamad Gharavi; Nahil El Araby
NOTES: Shell claimed that the Nigerian government breached the protections of the Nigeria-Netherlands BIT when the government ordered that Shell lose its rights under a production-sharing contract between Shell Nigeria and Nigeria’s state petroleum company (NNPC) and be replaced by Malabu Oil & Gas Limited, which is allegedly controlled by a former petroleum minister. The case was discontinued in August 2011, when Nigeria agreed to allocate the oil block to a joint venture of Shell and ENI for a payment of about $1.1 billion. Nigeria subsequently paid the same amount to Malabu. Nigeria’s attorney general stated in May 2012 that the claimants “agreed to pay Malabu through the federal government acting as an obligator,” prompting a protest by the transparency NGO Global Witness. The claimants have maintained that their agreement was only with the Nigerian government.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.6 billion
DISPUTE: OAO Tatneft (Russian Federation) v. Ukraine
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Grischenko & Partners
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL); PCA–BIT Arbitration/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Charles Brower; Marc Lalonde
NOTES: Suing under the Russia-Ukraine BIT, Tatneft complains that the Ukrainian judiciary allowed its investment in the Kremenchug oil refinery to be stolen by local business interests, and that the Ukrainian executive allowed a former manager to forcibly seize the facility in October 2007. The respondent disputes Tatneft’s claim. The arbitrators asserted jurisdiction in September 2010, and presided over the trial in March 2013.
DISPUTE: OAO Tatneft (Russian Federation) v. Ukraine
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Grischenko & Partners
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL); PCA–BIT Arbitration/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Charles Brower; Marc Lalonde
NOTES: Suing under the Russia-Ukraine BIT, Tatneft complains that the Ukrainian judiciary allowed its investment in the Kremenchug oil refinery to be stolen by local business interests, and that the Ukrainian executive allowed a former manager to forcibly seize the facility in October 2007. The respondent disputes Tatneft’s claim. The arbitrators asserted jurisdiction in September 2010, and presided over the trial in March 2013.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.6 billion
DISPUTE: Chevron Corp. (U.S.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Quevedo & Ponce
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn; Matrix Chambers; Attorney General, The Republic of Ecuador; Foley Hoag; Arnold & Porter
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID; Ad hoc (UNCITRAL); PCA–UNCITRAL Rules/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Charles Brower; Albert Jan van den Berg; Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel
NOTES: Not to be confused with its more famous fight in the Amazon, this claim by Chevron under the U.S.–Ecuador BIT arose out of a series of oil supply disputes that long languished in Ecuador’s courts. In the early 1990s Chevron’s predecessor Texaco filed seven court cases, alleging that Ecuador violated their 1973 production contract by requiring the company to supply Ecuador with more oil, at below-market prices, than it needed internally. In 2006 Chevron filed an arbitration supervised by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In March 2010 arbitrators ruled that chronic delays in the Ecuadorian courts breached the treaty’s guarantee of an effective means of defense. The tribunal found that the damage amounted to $698.6 million, but in August 2011—after accounting for taxes—it awarded net damages of only $96.3 million. In May 2012 the District Court of The Hague declined to set aside the award; Ecuador’s appeal from that ruling is pending. In July 2012 Chevron moved to confirm the award in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
DISPUTE: Chevron Corp. (U.S.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Quevedo & Ponce
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn; Matrix Chambers; Attorney General, The Republic of Ecuador; Foley Hoag; Arnold & Porter
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID; Ad hoc (UNCITRAL); PCA–UNCITRAL Rules/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Charles Brower; Albert Jan van den Berg; Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel
NOTES: Not to be confused with its more famous fight in the Amazon, this claim by Chevron under the U.S.–Ecuador BIT arose out of a series of oil supply disputes that long languished in Ecuador’s courts. In the early 1990s Chevron’s predecessor Texaco filed seven court cases, alleging that Ecuador violated their 1973 production contract by requiring the company to supply Ecuador with more oil, at below-market prices, than it needed internally. In 2006 Chevron filed an arbitration supervised by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In March 2010 arbitrators ruled that chronic delays in the Ecuadorian courts breached the treaty’s guarantee of an effective means of defense. The tribunal found that the damage amounted to $698.6 million, but in August 2011—after accounting for taxes—it awarded net damages of only $96.3 million. In May 2012 the District Court of The Hague declined to set aside the award; Ecuador’s appeal from that ruling is pending. In July 2012 Chevron moved to confirm the award in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.5 billion
DISPUTE: Cemex Caracas Investments B.V. (the Netherlands) and Cemex Caracas II Investments B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gilbert Guillaume; Robert von Mehren; Georges Abi-Saab
NOTES: Mexico’s CEMEX, through its Dutch subsidiaries, claimed losses arising out of Venezuela’s 2008 nationalization of that country’s largest cement business. In December 2010 arbitrators confirmed that Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Netherlands-Venezuela BIT came too late to short-circuit the claims. However, arbitrators declined jurisdiction over claims brought under Venezuela’s ambiguously worded investment law. In December 2011—only weeks after CEMEX had filed its final merits brief, and two months before trial—Venezuela settled the case for $600 million.
DISPUTE: Cemex Caracas Investments B.V. (the Netherlands) and Cemex Caracas II Investments B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gilbert Guillaume; Robert von Mehren; Georges Abi-Saab
NOTES: Mexico’s CEMEX, through its Dutch subsidiaries, claimed losses arising out of Venezuela’s 2008 nationalization of that country’s largest cement business. In December 2010 arbitrators confirmed that Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Netherlands-Venezuela BIT came too late to short-circuit the claims. However, arbitrators declined jurisdiction over claims brought under Venezuela’s ambiguously worded investment law. In December 2011—only weeks after CEMEX had filed its final merits brief, and two months before trial—Venezuela settled the case for $600 million.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.44 billion
DISPUTE: HICEE B.V. (the Netherlands) v. The Slovak Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin; Law Firm of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel; Skubla Partneri s.r.o.
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Sir Franklin Berman; Charles Brower; Peter Tomka
NOTES: A dispute under the Netherlands-Slovak BIT arising out of changes in Slovak laws that prevented health insurance companies from operating on a for-profit basis. In September 2011 a divided tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the treaty did not cover investments made indirectly through a Slovak subsidiary. HICEE has not pursued further proceedings. A smaller similar claim by Eureko B.V. (renamed Achmea B.V.) resulted in a €22 million award in December 2012. These cases are best known for the Eureko tribunal’s rejection of the contention that E.U. law trumps intra–E.U. BITs. That controversial conclusion is now being challenged in the German Federal Supreme Court.
DISPUTE: HICEE B.V. (the Netherlands) v. The Slovak Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin; Law Firm of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel; Skubla Partneri s.r.o.
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Sir Franklin Berman; Charles Brower; Peter Tomka
NOTES: A dispute under the Netherlands-Slovak BIT arising out of changes in Slovak laws that prevented health insurance companies from operating on a for-profit basis. In September 2011 a divided tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that the treaty did not cover investments made indirectly through a Slovak subsidiary. HICEE has not pursued further proceedings. A smaller similar claim by Eureko B.V. (renamed Achmea B.V.) resulted in a €22 million award in December 2012. These cases are best known for the Eureko tribunal’s rejection of the contention that E.U. law trumps intra–E.U. BITs. That controversial conclusion is now being challenged in the German Federal Supreme Court.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.34 billion
DISPUTE: Ping An Insurance Company of China Limited (People’s Republic of China) v. Kingdom of Belgium
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Kirkland & Ellis
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: David Williams; Philippe Sands
NOTES: China’s Ping An Insurance alleges that Belgium unjustly enriched itself when it nationalized Fortis Bank in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, as well as destroying Ping An’s investment in the Fortis financial services group. The respondent disputes Ping An’s claim. This is believed to be the first investment treaty claim arising out of the financial crisis, the first ICSID claim against Belgium, and the first ICSID claim by a mainland Chinese investor.
DISPUTE: Ping An Insurance Company of China Limited (People’s Republic of China) v. Kingdom of Belgium
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Kirkland & Ellis
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: David Williams; Philippe Sands
NOTES: China’s Ping An Insurance alleges that Belgium unjustly enriched itself when it nationalized Fortis Bank in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, as well as destroying Ping An’s investment in the Fortis financial services group. The respondent disputes Ping An’s claim. This is believed to be the first investment treaty claim arising out of the financial crisis, the first ICSID claim against Belgium, and the first ICSID claim by a mainland Chinese investor.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.292 billion
DISPUTE: Total SA (France) v. Argentine Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Abeledo Gottheil Abogados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Giorgio Sacerdoti; Luis
Herrera Marcano; Henri Alvarez
NOTES: In the largest nonbond claim to arise out of the Argentine financial crisis, Total claims losses under the France-Argentina BIT related to its investments in oil exploration and production, gas transportation, and electricity generation. In December 2010 an award on liability upheld a number of Total’s claims. The damages phase is ongoing.
DISPUTE: Total SA (France) v. Argentine Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Abeledo Gottheil Abogados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Giorgio Sacerdoti; Luis
Herrera Marcano; Henri Alvarez
NOTES: In the largest nonbond claim to arise out of the Argentine financial crisis, Total claims losses under the France-Argentina BIT related to its investments in oil exploration and production, gas transportation, and electricity generation. In December 2010 an award on liability upheld a number of Total’s claims. The damages phase is ongoing.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.2 billion
DISPUTE: Oxus Gold (U.K.) v. Republic of Uzbekistan, Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, and State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Amsterdam & Peroff; Derains & Gharavi
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: White & Case; Dewey & LeBoeuf
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Geneva
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Brigitte Stern; Marc Lalonde
NOTES: An ad hoc arbitration filed under the UNCITRAL rules, and funded by Calunius Capital LLP, alleging expropriation of Oxus Gold’s share of the Amantaytau Goldfields mining operation, in violation of the Uzbekistan–U.K. investment treaty. The respondent disputes Oxus Gold’s claims.
DISPUTE: Oxus Gold (U.K.) v. Republic of Uzbekistan, Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, and State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Amsterdam & Peroff; Derains & Gharavi
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: White & Case; Dewey & LeBoeuf
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Geneva
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Brigitte Stern; Marc Lalonde
NOTES: An ad hoc arbitration filed under the UNCITRAL rules, and funded by Calunius Capital LLP, alleging expropriation of Oxus Gold’s share of the Amantaytau Goldfields mining operation, in violation of the Uzbekistan–U.K. investment treaty. The respondent disputes Oxus Gold’s claims.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.2 billion
DISPUTE: Sudapet Company Ltd. (Republic of the Sudan) v. Republic of South Sudan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Dentons; Matrix Chambers
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Campbell McLachlan; David Williams; Gavan Griffith
NOTES: A year after South Sudan’s 2011 secession, Sudan’s national oil company, Sudapet, filed a claim for the expropriation of its oil assets in South Sudan under the Investment Promotion Act in the new state’s interim constitution. The respondent disputes Sudapet’s claims. This is believed to be the first ICSID dispute to turn on issues of state succession and, in particular, the ownership of state oil resources following the formation of a new independent state.
DISPUTE: Sudapet Company Ltd. (Republic of the Sudan) v. Republic of South Sudan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Dentons; Matrix Chambers
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Campbell McLachlan; David Williams; Gavan Griffith
NOTES: A year after South Sudan’s 2011 secession, Sudan’s national oil company, Sudapet, filed a claim for the expropriation of its oil assets in South Sudan under the Investment Promotion Act in the new state’s interim constitution. The respondent disputes Sudapet’s claims. This is believed to be the first ICSID dispute to turn on issues of state succession and, in particular, the ownership of state oil resources following the formation of a new independent state.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.2 billion
DISPUTE: Suez S.A., Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (France), and Vivendi SA (Spain) v. Argentine Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Jeswald Salacuse; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Pedro Nikken
NOTES: In a July 2010 verdict on liability, Argentina was found in breach of treaty protections owed to a cluster of foreign investors in a Buenos Aires water and sewage concession, despite the admission of an amicus brief by human rights NGOs allied with Argentina. The damages phase is still pending.
DISPUTE: Suez S.A., Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (France), and Vivendi SA (Spain) v. Argentine Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Jeswald Salacuse; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Pedro Nikken
NOTES: In a July 2010 verdict on liability, Argentina was found in breach of treaty protections owed to a cluster of foreign investors in a Buenos Aires water and sewage concession, despite the admission of an amicus brief by human rights NGOs allied with Argentina. The damages phase is still pending.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.2 billion
DISPUTE: Vannessa Ventures (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Torys; Essex Chambers
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Vaughan Lowe; Charles Brower; Jan Paulsson
NOTES: In a dispute filed under the Canada-Venezuela investment treaty in 2004, Vannessa sought restitution for its alleged contractual rights in a gold mine concession confiscated by Venezuela, and damages for the delayed development of a mining project. The tribunal rejected Vannessa’s claims on the merits in January 2013. A claim by Crystallex International Corporation, which professes to be the rightful owner of the same concession, is still pending.
DISPUTE: Vannessa Ventures (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Torys; Essex Chambers
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Vaughan Lowe; Charles Brower; Jan Paulsson
NOTES: In a dispute filed under the Canada-Venezuela investment treaty in 2004, Vannessa sought restitution for its alleged contractual rights in a gold mine concession confiscated by Venezuela, and damages for the delayed development of a mining project. The tribunal rejected Vannessa’s claims on the merits in January 2013. A claim by Crystallex International Corporation, which professes to be the rightful owner of the same concession, is still pending.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.159 billion
DISPUTE: Universal Compression International Holdings S.L.U. (Spain) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Despacho De Abogados Miembros De Macleod Dixon Caracas
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Rowley; Guido Santiago Tawil; Brigitte Stern
NOTES: A subsidiary of Houston’s Exterran Holdings Inc. sued under the Spain-Venezuela investment treaty over Venezuela’s 2009 nationalization of its gas compression business. A month after the five-day trial held in July 2012, Venezuela settled for $442 million. Venezuela paid an additional $112 million to Exterran in March 2012, to settle the ICSID claim brought over the seizure of its WilPro joint ventures with The Williams Cos. Inc.
DISPUTE: Universal Compression International Holdings S.L.U. (Spain) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Despacho De Abogados Miembros De Macleod Dixon Caracas
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Rowley; Guido Santiago Tawil; Brigitte Stern
NOTES: A subsidiary of Houston’s Exterran Holdings Inc. sued under the Spain-Venezuela investment treaty over Venezuela’s 2009 nationalization of its gas compression business. A month after the five-day trial held in July 2012, Venezuela settled for $442 million. Venezuela paid an additional $112 million to Exterran in March 2012, to settle the ICSID claim brought over the seizure of its WilPro joint ventures with The Williams Cos. Inc.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.1 billion
DISPUTE: Hussain Sajwani, Damac Park Avenue for Real Estate Development S.A.E. (UAE), and Damac Gamsha Bay for Development S.A.E. (Egypt) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance; King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Daniel Price; Toby Landau
NOTES: A group of Gulf State real estate investors allege that Egypt seized their land development projects in violation of the UAE–Egypt BIT after the Arab Spring. Egypt alleges that the claimants’ investment was made through the corruption of prior government officials. In December the tribunal denied the respondent’s request for bifurcation.
DISPUTE: Hussain Sajwani, Damac Park Avenue for Real Estate Development S.A.E. (UAE), and Damac Gamsha Bay for Development S.A.E. (Egypt) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance; King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Daniel Price; Toby Landau
NOTES: A group of Gulf State real estate investors allege that Egypt seized their land development projects in violation of the UAE–Egypt BIT after the Arab Spring. Egypt alleges that the claimants’ investment was made through the corruption of prior government officials. In December the tribunal denied the respondent’s request for bifurcation.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion
DISPUTE: Apotex Holdings Inc. (Canada) v. The Government of the United States of America
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/New York
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; J. William Rowley; John Crook
NOTES: Largest pending NAFTA arbitration against the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned hundreds of millions of dollars in drug imports from Canada’s largest drugmaker, following the inspection of two Apotex manufacturing facilities. Apotex alleges that this measure was adopted without minimum due process, and discriminated arbitrarily between it and competing investors that received similar inspection findings. The respondent disputes Apotex’s claims. In January the tribunal denied the U.S.’s request to bifurcate the case, and set a hearing on all issues of jurisdiction and liability for November 2013.
DISPUTE: Apotex Holdings Inc. (Canada) v. The Government of the United States of America
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/New York
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; J. William Rowley; John Crook
NOTES: Largest pending NAFTA arbitration against the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned hundreds of millions of dollars in drug imports from Canada’s largest drugmaker, following the inspection of two Apotex manufacturing facilities. Apotex alleges that this measure was adopted without minimum due process, and discriminated arbitrarily between it and competing investors that received similar inspection findings. The respondent disputes Apotex’s claims. In January the tribunal denied the U.S.’s request to bifurcate the case, and set a hearing on all issues of jurisdiction and liability for November 2013.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion
DISPUTE: International Quantum Resources Limited (British Virgin Islands), Frontier SPRL (Congo), and Compagnie Minière de Sakania SPRL (Congo) v. Democratic Republic of the Congo
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Fasken Martineau
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Brigitte Stern; Horacio Grigera Naon
NOTES: After Canada’s First Quantum Minerals brought an ICC arbitration against Congo over its giant Kolwezi copper project in February 2010, Congo halted operations of the Frontier and Lonshi copper mines operated by other Quantum entities near the border with Zambia. In this ICSID arbitration, filed in the summer of 2010, claimants alleged that Congo’s actions violated the Congo Mining Code’s guarantee of secure investment, and sought reinstatement of their mining permits. These cases, and related litigation in the British Virgin Islands with European Natural Resources Corporation PLC, settled in March 2012 as a condition of ENRC buying the disputed Congolese assets from First Quantum for $1.25 billion.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: ABCI Investments N.V.
(the Netherlands) v. Republic of Tunisia
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Patrick Juillard; Kimbrough & Associes
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith Freehills
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Piero Bernadini; Francisco Orrego-Vicuna
NOTES: Once known as the Arab Business Consortium International Finance & Investment Company, ABCI alleges that its interest in Tunisia’s Banque Franco-Tunisienne was expropriated. Claims are asserted under both the Netherlands-Tunisia BIT and the domestic law governing international investment. The respondent disputes ABCI’s claims. In February 2011 a divided tribunal upheld jurisdiction. Proceedings on the merits are currently suspended.
DISPUTE: International Quantum Resources Limited (British Virgin Islands), Frontier SPRL (Congo), and Compagnie Minière de Sakania SPRL (Congo) v. Democratic Republic of the Congo
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Fasken Martineau
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Brigitte Stern; Horacio Grigera Naon
NOTES: After Canada’s First Quantum Minerals brought an ICC arbitration against Congo over its giant Kolwezi copper project in February 2010, Congo halted operations of the Frontier and Lonshi copper mines operated by other Quantum entities near the border with Zambia. In this ICSID arbitration, filed in the summer of 2010, claimants alleged that Congo’s actions violated the Congo Mining Code’s guarantee of secure investment, and sought reinstatement of their mining permits. These cases, and related litigation in the British Virgin Islands with European Natural Resources Corporation PLC, settled in March 2012 as a condition of ENRC buying the disputed Congolese assets from First Quantum for $1.25 billion.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: ABCI Investments N.V.
(the Netherlands) v. Republic of Tunisia
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Patrick Juillard; Kimbrough & Associes
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith Freehills
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Piero Bernadini; Francisco Orrego-Vicuna
NOTES: Once known as the Arab Business Consortium International Finance & Investment Company, ABCI alleges that its interest in Tunisia’s Banque Franco-Tunisienne was expropriated. Claims are asserted under both the Netherlands-Tunisia BIT and the domestic law governing international investment. The respondent disputes ABCI’s claims. In February 2011 a divided tribunal upheld jurisdiction. Proceedings on the merits are currently suspended.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Ampal-American Israel Corporation (U.S.), EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC (U.S.), EGI-Series Investments LLC (Germany), BSS-EMG Investors LLC (Germany), and David Fischer (Germany) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; M. Firon & Co
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Campbell McLachlan
NOTES: After the fall of former president Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian gas pipeline to Israel was sabotaged more than a dozen times, and Egyptian suppliers halted a government-backed project to construct a submarine pipeline and export natural gas to Israel as an extension of Egypt and Israel’s commitment to energy interdependence in their 1979 peace treaty. The suppliers cited the exporter’s alleged failure to pay for the gas delivered to it between January 2011 and March 2012. Egypt and the state-owned Egyptian supplier are now locked in multiple treaty or contract arbitrations with the exporter to Israel, East Mediterranean Gas Company, or its shareholders. In this dispute, lead claimant Ampal-American alleges violations of the Egypt–U.S. investment treaty based on its 12.5 percent stake in East Mediterranean. Other claimants invoke the Egypt-Germany treaty. Egypt responds that this is a disguised contract arbitration, arising exclusively out of an agreement that was signed by none of the parties to the arbitration. Egypt seeks to deny the benefits of the U.S.–Egypt BIT to Ampal-American pursuant to the provisions of the treaty.
DISPUTE: Ampal-American Israel Corporation (U.S.), EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC (U.S.), EGI-Series Investments LLC (Germany), BSS-EMG Investors LLC (Germany), and David Fischer (Germany) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; M. Firon & Co
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Campbell McLachlan
NOTES: After the fall of former president Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian gas pipeline to Israel was sabotaged more than a dozen times, and Egyptian suppliers halted a government-backed project to construct a submarine pipeline and export natural gas to Israel as an extension of Egypt and Israel’s commitment to energy interdependence in their 1979 peace treaty. The suppliers cited the exporter’s alleged failure to pay for the gas delivered to it between January 2011 and March 2012. Egypt and the state-owned Egyptian supplier are now locked in multiple treaty or contract arbitrations with the exporter to Israel, East Mediterranean Gas Company, or its shareholders. In this dispute, lead claimant Ampal-American alleges violations of the Egypt–U.S. investment treaty based on its 12.5 percent stake in East Mediterranean. Other claimants invoke the Egypt-Germany treaty. Egypt responds that this is a disguised contract arbitration, arising exclusively out of an agreement that was signed by none of the parties to the arbitration. Egypt seeks to deny the benefits of the U.S.–Egypt BIT to Ampal-American pursuant to the provisions of the treaty.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Yosef Maiman, Merhav (mnf) Ltd. (Israel), Merhav Ampal Group Ltd. (Israel), and Merhav Ampal Energy Holdings Limited Partnership (Israel) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; M. Firon & Co.
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Donald McRae; W. Michael Reisman; Christopher Thomas
NOTES: The second of the two treaty challenges brought by investors in East Mediterranean Gas Company to the 2011 termination of Egypt’s natural gas deal with Israel. The lead claimant in this dispute, Yosef Maiman, is the chair of East Mediterranean shareholder Ampal-A merican Israel Corporation. An Israeli businessman with Polish origins, Maiman brings a claim under the Egypt-Poland investment treaty. Other claimants invoke the Egypt–U.K. treaty. Egypt responds that this is a disguised contract arbitration, arising exclusively out of an agreement that was signed by none of the parties to the arbitration.
DISPUTE: Yosef Maiman, Merhav (mnf) Ltd. (Israel), Merhav Ampal Group Ltd. (Israel), and Merhav Ampal Energy Holdings Limited Partnership (Israel) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; M. Firon & Co.
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Donald McRae; W. Michael Reisman; Christopher Thomas
NOTES: The second of the two treaty challenges brought by investors in East Mediterranean Gas Company to the 2011 termination of Egypt’s natural gas deal with Israel. The lead claimant in this dispute, Yosef Maiman, is the chair of East Mediterranean shareholder Ampal-A merican Israel Corporation. An Israeli businessman with Polish origins, Maiman brings a claim under the Egypt-Poland investment treaty. Other claimants invoke the Egypt–U.K. treaty. Egypt responds that this is a disguised contract arbitration, arising exclusively out of an agreement that was signed by none of the parties to the arbitration.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Anglian Water Group (U.K.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Jeswald Salacuse; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Pedro Nikken
NOTES: An UNCITRAL arbitration against Argentina in connection with the water and wastewater concession for the city of Buenos Aires, pursuant to the applicable bilateral investment treaties. In a groundbreaking decision, the tribunal admitted an amicus curiae brief submitted by a group of NGOs on the side of the state. The investors nonetheless won on liability in July 2010. The damages phase is now pending.
DISPUTE: Anglian Water Group (U.K.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Jeswald Salacuse; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Pedro Nikken
NOTES: An UNCITRAL arbitration against Argentina in connection with the water and wastewater concession for the city of Buenos Aires, pursuant to the applicable bilateral investment treaties. In a groundbreaking decision, the tribunal admitted an amicus curiae brief submitted by a group of NGOs on the side of the state. The investors nonetheless won on liability in July 2010. The damages phase is now pending.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: CC/Devas LTD. (Mauritius), Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited (Mauritius), and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited (Mauritius) v. The Republic of India
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Marc Lalonde; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Anil Dev Singh
NOTES: In 2005 India’s Department of Space approved a contract to lease satellite capacity to Devas Multimedia Private Limited that would enable it to provide audiovisual, broadband, and mobile Internet services within India through a satellite and terrestrial network. Devas’s investors include DT Asia, a Singapore subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (which holds a 20 percent stake in Devas), and CC/Devas Mauritius Private Limited and Telcom Devas Mauritius Private Limited (each with 17 percent), two Mauritius affiliates of U.S. venture capital firms Columbia Capital LLC and Telcom Ventures LLC. After India moved to annul Devas’s rights under the contract in February 2011, Devas brought an ICC contract arbitration against Antrix Corporation Limited, the marketing arm of India’s space agency. After that action was enjoined by the Indian Supreme Court, the Mauritian investment vehicles (CC/Devas, Telcom Devas, and Devas Employees Mauritius Limited) brought a treaty arbitration against India under the Mauritius-India BIT.
DISPUTE: CC/Devas LTD. (Mauritius), Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited (Mauritius), and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited (Mauritius) v. The Republic of India
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Marc Lalonde; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Anil Dev Singh
NOTES: In 2005 India’s Department of Space approved a contract to lease satellite capacity to Devas Multimedia Private Limited that would enable it to provide audiovisual, broadband, and mobile Internet services within India through a satellite and terrestrial network. Devas’s investors include DT Asia, a Singapore subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (which holds a 20 percent stake in Devas), and CC/Devas Mauritius Private Limited and Telcom Devas Mauritius Private Limited (each with 17 percent), two Mauritius affiliates of U.S. venture capital firms Columbia Capital LLC and Telcom Ventures LLC. After India moved to annul Devas’s rights under the contract in February 2011, Devas brought an ICC contract arbitration against Antrix Corporation Limited, the marketing arm of India’s space agency. After that action was enjoined by the Indian Supreme Court, the Mauritian investment vehicles (CC/Devas, Telcom Devas, and Devas Employees Mauritius Limited) brought a treaty arbitration against India under the Mauritius-India BIT.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Germany) v. Republic of the Philippines
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; McDermott Will & Emery
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Stanimir Alexandrov; Albert Jan Van Den Berg
NOTES: In 2004, after Frankfurt airport’s Fraport had spent more than $425 million to build a new terminal at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport, the Philippines seized the nearly complete facility. In 2007 a divided tribunal declined jurisdiction over Fraport’s treaty claim. However, in 2010 an ICSID review committee found a serious violation of a fundamental rule of procedure and annulled that result. Fraport submitted a new request for ICSID arbitration in March 2011. The parallel contract arbitration by PIATCO is still pending. The Philippines pledged in January 2013 that the terminal would finally be fully operational by year-end. But the Germans are still seeking compensation.
DISPUTE: Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Germany) v. Republic of the Philippines
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; McDermott Will & Emery
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Stanimir Alexandrov; Albert Jan Van Den Berg
NOTES: In 2004, after Frankfurt airport’s Fraport had spent more than $425 million to build a new terminal at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport, the Philippines seized the nearly complete facility. In 2007 a divided tribunal declined jurisdiction over Fraport’s treaty claim. However, in 2010 an ICSID review committee found a serious violation of a fundamental rule of procedure and annulled that result. Fraport submitted a new request for ICSID arbitration in March 2011. The parallel contract arbitration by PIATCO is still pending. The Philippines pledged in January 2013 that the terminal would finally be fully operational by year-end. But the Germans are still seeking compensation.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Slovak Gas Holding (the Netherlands) v. the Slovak Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag; David A. Pawlak LLC
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: J. Christopher Thomas; Zachary Douglas; Toby Landau
NOTES: Claim under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of measures taken by the government affecting rate regulation and corporate governance in the Slovak gas industry.
DISPUTE: Slovak Gas Holding (the Netherlands) v. the Slovak Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag; David A. Pawlak LLC
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: J. Christopher Thomas; Zachary Douglas; Toby Landau
NOTES: Claim under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of measures taken by the government affecting rate regulation and corporate governance in the Slovak gas industry.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Teinver S.A. (Spain) v. The Argentine Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Thomas Buergenthal; Henri C. Álvarez; Kamal Hossain
NOTES: Spanish investors are suing under the Spain-Argentina BIT over the nationalization of Argentina’s two largest airlines in 2008–09. The respondent disputes their claims. In December 2012 the arbitrators asserted jurisdiction.
DISPUTE: Teinver S.A. (Spain) v. The Argentine Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Thomas Buergenthal; Henri C. Álvarez; Kamal Hossain
NOTES: Spanish investors are suing under the Spain-Argentina BIT over the nationalization of Argentina’s two largest airlines in 2008–09. The respondent disputes their claims. In December 2012 the arbitrators asserted jurisdiction.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Tethyan Copper Company Pty. Ltd. (Australia) v. Government of Pakistan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Advocate General, Balochistan; ABS & Co; 12 Gray’s Inn Square; Matrix Chambers
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Klaus Sachs; Lord Leonard Hoffman; Stanimir Alexandrov
NOTES: In a mining joint venture with the Balochistan province of Pakistan, Tethyan invested more than $240 million on exploration and feasibility plans. After being denied a mining license, the foreign investor then filed parallel arbitrations under its joint venture agreement with Balochistan and, here, under the Australia-Pakistan BIT. The respondent disputes Tethyan’s claims. The merits hearing is scheduled for December 2013.
DISPUTE: Tethyan Copper Company Pty. Ltd. (Australia) v. Government of Pakistan
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Advocate General, Balochistan; ABS & Co; 12 Gray’s Inn Square; Matrix Chambers
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Klaus Sachs; Lord Leonard Hoffman; Stanimir Alexandrov
NOTES: In a mining joint venture with the Balochistan province of Pakistan, Tethyan invested more than $240 million on exploration and feasibility plans. After being denied a mining license, the foreign investor then filed parallel arbitrations under its joint venture agreement with Balochistan and, here, under the Australia-Pakistan BIT. The respondent disputes Tethyan’s claims. The merits hearing is scheduled for December 2013.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Urbaser S.A. (Spain) and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia v. Attorney General of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Jones Day
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Andreas Bucher; Campbell McLachlan; Pedro Martínez Fraga
NOTES: Spanish water utilities are suing under the Spain-Argentina BIT over the treatment of their Buenos Aires concession during the peso crisis of 2001–02. In December 2012 the arbitrators asserted jurisdiction.
DISPUTE: Urbaser S.A. (Spain) and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia v. Attorney General of Argentina
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Jones Day
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Andreas Bucher; Campbell McLachlan; Pedro Martínez Fraga
NOTES: Spanish water utilities are suing under the Spain-Argentina BIT over the treatment of their Buenos Aires concession during the peso crisis of 2001–02. In December 2012 the arbitrators asserted jurisdiction.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Ioan Micula (Romania), Viorel Micula (Romania), SC European Food SA (Romania), SC Starmill SRL (Romania), and SC Multipack SRL. (Romania) v. Government of Romania
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; King & Spalding; Arnold & Porter; Muscat & Asociati
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Nestor Nestor Diculescu Kingston Petersen
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Laurent Lévy; Stanimir Alexandrov; Claus-Dieter Ehlermann
NOTES: Swedish investors in the Romanian food and beverage sector allege under the Sweden-Romania BIT that Romania improperly revoked tax exemptions for raw material imports used by factories in disadvantaged areas of the country. Romania contends, among other things, that these steps were legitimately and necessarily taken as part of the E.U. accession process. In 2010 the E.U. filed an amicus brief in support of Romania. The parties argued the case in November 2010, and now await the tribunal’s award.
DISPUTE: Ioan Micula (Romania), Viorel Micula (Romania), SC European Food SA (Romania), SC Starmill SRL (Romania), and SC Multipack SRL. (Romania) v. Government of Romania
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; King & Spalding; Arnold & Porter; Muscat & Asociati
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Nestor Nestor Diculescu Kingston Petersen
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Laurent Lévy; Stanimir Alexandrov; Claus-Dieter Ehlermann
NOTES: Swedish investors in the Romanian food and beverage sector allege under the Sweden-Romania BIT that Romania improperly revoked tax exemptions for raw material imports used by factories in disadvantaged areas of the country. Romania contends, among other things, that these steps were legitimately and necessarily taken as part of the E.U. accession process. In 2010 the E.U. filed an amicus brief in support of Romania. The parties argued the case in November 2010, and now await the tribunal’s award.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $939 million
DISPUTE: Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes C.A. (Venezuela) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Alexis Mourre
DISPUTE: Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes C.A. (Venezuela) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Alexis Mourre
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $939 million
DISPUTE: O.I. European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Juan Fernandez Armesto; Francisco Orrego Vicu?a; Alexis Mourre
DISPUTE: O.I. European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Juan Fernandez Armesto; Francisco Orrego Vicu?a; Alexis Mourre
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $855 million
DISPUTE: Mobile Telesystems OJSC (Russia) v. Republic of Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Campbell McLachlan; Michael Pryles; Thomas Buergenthal
DISPUTE: Mobile Telesystems OJSC (Russia) v. Republic of Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Campbell McLachlan; Michael Pryles; Thomas Buergenthal
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $800 million
DISPUTE: Suez S.A (France), Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (Spain), and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua SA v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Jeswald Salacuse; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Pedro Nikken
DISPUTE: Suez S.A (France), Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (Spain), and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua SA v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Jeswald Salacuse; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Pedro Nikken
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $800 million
DISPUTE: The Renco Group (U.S.) v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie; White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
DISPUTE: The Renco Group (U.S.) v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie; White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $797 million
DISPUTE: Victor Pey Casado (Spain) and President Allende Foundation (Spain)
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Garcés y Prada Abogados; Gide Loyrette Nouel; Buckley Sandler
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Carey y Cia
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Piero Bernardini; Ahmed El-Kosheri
DISPUTE: Victor Pey Casado (Spain) and President Allende Foundation (Spain)
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Garcés y Prada Abogados; Gide Loyrette Nouel; Buckley Sandler
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Carey y Cia
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Piero Bernardini; Ahmed El-Kosheri
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $788 million
DISPUTE: Mesa Power Group LLC (U.S.) v. Government of Canada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Appleton & Associates International Lawyers
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada; Foreign Affairs & International Trade, Canada
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: PCA - NAFTA Arbitration
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Toby Landau; Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Mesa Power Group LLC (U.S.) v. Government of Canada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Appleton & Associates International Lawyers
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada; Foreign Affairs & International Trade, Canada
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: PCA - NAFTA Arbitration
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Toby Landau; Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $700 million
DISPUTE: Electrabel S.A. (Belgium) v. Government of Hungary
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Faludi Wolf Theiss
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Law Offices of Dr. János Katona
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Electrabel S.A. (Belgium) v. Government of Hungary
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Faludi Wolf Theiss
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Law Offices of Dr. János Katona
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $700 million
DISPUTE: Progas Holdings Limited (Mauritius) and Sheffield Engineering Company Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Eversheds
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez; Emmanuel Gaillard; Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri
DISPUTE: Progas Holdings Limited (Mauritius) and Sheffield Engineering Company Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Eversheds
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez; Emmanuel Gaillard; Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $700 million
DISPUTE: The Williams Companies (the Netherlands), Internt'l Holdings B.V. (The Cayman Islands),and WilPro Energy Services v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
DISPUTE: The Williams Companies (the Netherlands), Internt'l Holdings B.V. (The Cayman Islands),and WilPro Energy Services v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $670 million
DISPUTE: HG Capital (the Netherlands), Ampere (Germany), Element Power (Luxembourg), MEIF (Spain), Withowl (the Netherlands) , NIBC (Germany), Werec (Luxembourg), AES (Spain), Eoxis, MPC Capital, Ceconat, Arisol and KGAL v. Government of Spain
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith Freehills
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL); PCA-ECT Arbitration/Geneva
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Charles Brower; Bernardo Sepulveda-Amor
DISPUTE: HG Capital (the Netherlands), Ampere (Germany), Element Power (Luxembourg), MEIF (Spain), Withowl (the Netherlands) , NIBC (Germany), Werec (Luxembourg), AES (Spain), Eoxis, MPC Capital, Ceconat, Arisol and KGAL v. Government of Spain
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith Freehills
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL); PCA-ECT Arbitration/Geneva
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Charles Brower; Bernardo Sepulveda-Amor
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $650 million
DISPUTE: Koch Minerals Sarl Switzerland) and Koch Nitrogen International Sarl (Switzerland) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins; Chadbourne & Parke; Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Sherman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Marc Lalonde; Florentino Feliciano
DISPUTE: Koch Minerals Sarl Switzerland) and Koch Nitrogen International Sarl (Switzerland) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins; Chadbourne & Parke; Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Sherman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Marc Lalonde; Florentino Feliciano
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $605.3 million
DISPUTE: Daimler Financial Services AG (Germany) v. Government of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Kelley Drye & Warren
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre-Marie Dupuy; Charles Brower; Domingo Bello Janeiro
DISPUTE: Daimler Financial Services AG (Germany) v. Government of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Kelley Drye & Warren
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre-Marie Dupuy; Charles Brower; Domingo Bello Janeiro
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $600 million
DISPUTE: Guardian Fiduciary Trust Ltd v. Macedonia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Janura Law Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Andreas Bucher
DISPUTE: Guardian Fiduciary Trust Ltd v. Macedonia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Janura Law Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Andreas Bucher
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $600 million
DISPUTE: Içkale Insaat Limited Sirketi (Turkey) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Sakmar Law Office
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle; Gürel & Yörüker Law Firm
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Carolyn Lamm; Veijo Heiskanen; Fali Nariman
DISPUTE: Içkale Insaat Limited Sirketi (Turkey) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Sakmar Law Office
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle; Gürel & Yörüker Law Firm
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Carolyn Lamm; Veijo Heiskanen; Fali Nariman
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $600 million
DISPUTE: Turkcell Ileti?im Hizmetleri A.?. (Turkey) v. Islamic Republic of Iran
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Yüksel Yüksel Karkin Küçük; DLA Piper UK
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Director, Centre for International Legal Affairs Islamic Republic of Iran; Eversheds; Essex Court Chambers
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Administered by the PCA/London
ARBITRATORS: Neil Kaplan; Mir Hossein Abedian Kalkhoran; Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Turkcell Ileti?im Hizmetleri A.?. (Turkey) v. Islamic Republic of Iran
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Yüksel Yüksel Karkin Küçük; DLA Piper UK
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Director, Centre for International Legal Affairs Islamic Republic of Iran; Eversheds; Essex Court Chambers
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Administered by the PCA/London
ARBITRATORS: Neil Kaplan; Mir Hossein Abedian Kalkhoran; Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $588 million
DISPUTE: Oxus Gold Plc (UK) v. Republic of Uzbekistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Derains & Gharavi
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Marc Lalonde; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Oxus Gold Plc (UK) v. Republic of Uzbekistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Derains & Gharavi
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Marc Lalonde; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $560 million
DISPUTE: Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi (U.S.) v. Sultanate of Oman
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: DLA Piper
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: David A.R. Williams; Charles Brower; J. Christopher Thomas
DISPUTE: Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi (U.S.) v. Sultanate of Oman
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: DLA Piper
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: David A.R. Williams; Charles Brower; J. Christopher Thomas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: China Heilong International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp. (China), Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company Limited (China), and Qinhuangdaoshi Qinlong International Industrial Co. Ltd. (China) v. Mongolia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Yas Banifatemi; Mark Clodfelter; Donald Donovan
DISPUTE: China Heilong International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp. (China), Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company Limited (China), and Qinhuangdaoshi Qinlong International Industrial Co. Ltd. (China) v. Mongolia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Yas Banifatemi; Mark Clodfelter; Donald Donovan
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: Ithaca Holdings Inc (U.S.) and Mikhael Nidel (Russia) v. Kyrgyz Republic
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Klaus Reichert; Richard DeWitt; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Ithaca Holdings Inc (U.S.) and Mikhael Nidel (Russia) v. Kyrgyz Republic
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Klaus Reichert; Richard DeWitt; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: Lao Holdings N.V. (Aruba) v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Lackey Hershman; Treaty Law
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: City University of Hong Kong
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Ian Binnie; Bernard Hanotiau; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Lao Holdings N.V. (Aruba) v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Lackey Hershman; Treaty Law
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: City University of Hong Kong
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Ian Binnie; Bernard Hanotiau; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: Longreef Investments (the Netherlands) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Procuraduría General de la República in Caracas; Arnold & Porter
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: David Edward; Enrique Gómez Pinzón; Alexis Mourre
DISPUTE: Longreef Investments (the Netherlands) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Procuraduría General de la República in Caracas; Arnold & Porter
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: David Edward; Enrique Gómez Pinzón; Alexis Mourre
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: Repsol YPF Ecuador SA. (Ecuador), Murphy Ecuador Oil Company SA (Ecuador), CRS Resources LDC (Cayman Islands, and Overseas Petroleum and Investment Corporation (Panama) v. Republic of Ecuador, Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador, and PetroEcuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn; Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco; Raul Vinuesa; Horacio Grigera Naon
DISPUTE: Repsol YPF Ecuador SA. (Ecuador), Murphy Ecuador Oil Company SA (Ecuador), CRS Resources LDC (Cayman Islands, and Overseas Petroleum and Investment Corporation (Panama) v. Republic of Ecuador, Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador, and PetroEcuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn; Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco; Raul Vinuesa; Horacio Grigera Naon
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: Sergei Paushok (Russia), CJSC Golden East Company, and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. Government of Mongolia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Squire Sanders
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Marc Lalond; Horacio Grigera Naón; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Sergei Paushok (Russia), CJSC Golden East Company, and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. Government of Mongolia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Squire Sanders
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Marc Lalond; Horacio Grigera Naón; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi (Turkey) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Hughes Hubbard & Reed
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Reed Smith; Essex Court Chambers; 20 Essex Street Chambers
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Donald McRae; Brigette Stern; Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi (Turkey) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Hughes Hubbard & Reed
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Reed Smith; Essex Court Chambers; 20 Essex Street Chambers
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Donald McRae; Brigette Stern; Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: United States of America v. Canada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: U.S. Dept. of Justice
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hughes Hubbard & Reed; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: LCIA/London
ARBITRATORS: Klaus Sachs; V.V. Veeder; A.J. van den Berg
DISPUTE: United States of America v. Canada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: U.S. Dept. of Justice
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hughes Hubbard & Reed; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: LCIA/London
ARBITRATORS: Klaus Sachs; V.V. Veeder; A.J. van den Berg
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $500 million
DISPUTE: RSM Production Corporation (U.S.) v. Government of Grenada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dewey & LeBoeuf; Grand, Auzas and Associés
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Rowley; Edward Nottingham; Pierre Tercier
DISPUTE: RSM Production Corporation (U.S.) v. Government of Grenada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dewey & LeBoeuf; Grand, Auzas and Associés
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Rowley; Edward Nottingham; Pierre Tercier
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $460 million
DISPUTE: Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants Inc. (U.S.), and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat; Mayer Brown
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive and Leaua & Associatii
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Rudolf Dolzer; Hamid Gharavi
DISPUTE: Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants Inc. (U.S.), and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat; Mayer Brown
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive and Leaua & Associatii
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Rudolf Dolzer; Hamid Gharavi
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $450 million
DISPUTE: Metal-Tech Ltd. (Israel) v. Republic of Uzbekistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; John Townsend; Claus von Wobeser
DISPUTE: Metal-Tech Ltd. (Israel) v. Republic of Uzbekistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; John Townsend; Claus von Wobeser
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $450 million
DISPUTE: Tulip Real Estate (the Netherlands) and Development Netherlands BV v. Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive; Nixon Peabody; Kuyesri; Kuseyri Hukuk Bürosu
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gavin Griffin; Michael Jaffe; Rolf Knieper
DISPUTE: Tulip Real Estate (the Netherlands) and Development Netherlands BV v. Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive; Nixon Peabody; Kuyesri; Kuseyri Hukuk Bürosu
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Gavin Griffin; Michael Jaffe; Rolf Knieper
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $430 million
DISPUTE: Bawabet Al Kuwait Holding Company (Kuwait) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance; Hafez
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Legal Counselor to the Prime Minister of Egypt; Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London
ARBITRATORS: Teresa Cheng; Philippe Sands; Bernard Hanotiau
DISPUTE: Bawabet Al Kuwait Holding Company (Kuwait) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance; Hafez
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Legal Counselor to the Prime Minister of Egypt; Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London
ARBITRATORS: Teresa Cheng; Philippe Sands; Bernard Hanotiau
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $400 million
DISPUTE: Vigotop Limited (Cyprus) v. Hungary
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Sàntha & Pozsgai Law Office
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case; Réczizca; Sàrhegyi és Tàrsai Law Firm
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Vaughan Lowe; Albert Jan van den Berg
DISPUTE: Vigotop Limited (Cyprus) v. Hungary
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Sàntha & Pozsgai Law Office
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case; Réczizca; Sàrhegyi és Tàrsai Law Firm
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Vaughan Lowe; Albert Jan van den Berg
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $400 million
DISPUTE: Mercuria SA (Cyprus) v. Republic of Poland
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/Stockholm
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Vaughan Lowe; Albert Jan van den Berg
DISPUTE: Mercuria SA (Cyprus) v. Republic of Poland
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/Stockholm
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Vaughan Lowe; Albert Jan van den Berg
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $400 million
DISPUTE: Sabafon (Yemen) v. Republic of Yemen
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Jamal Adimi
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Burnet Duckworth & Palmer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL/Dubai
ARBITRATORS: Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez; Bernard Hanotiau; Antonio de Fina
DISPUTE: Sabafon (Yemen) v. Republic of Yemen
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Jamal Adimi
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Burnet Duckworth & Palmer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL/Dubai
ARBITRATORS: Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez; Bernard Hanotiau; Antonio de Fina
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $370 million
DISPUTE: Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. (U.S.), Suc. Argentina (Argentina), and Mobil Argentina Sociedad Anónima v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Pagbam
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gustaf Möller; Piero Bernardini; Antonio Remiro Brotóns
DISPUTE: Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. (U.S.), Suc. Argentina (Argentina), and Mobil Argentina Sociedad Anónima v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Pagbam
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gustaf Möller; Piero Bernardini; Antonio Remiro Brotóns
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $350 million
DISPUTE: Supervisión y Control S.A. (Spain) v. Government of Costa Rica
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Fowler, Rodriguez; Valdes-Fauli
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Claus von Wobeser; Joseph Klock, Jr; Eduardo Silva Romero
DISPUTE: Supervisión y Control S.A. (Spain) v. Government of Costa Rica
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Fowler, Rodriguez; Valdes-Fauli
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Claus von Wobeser; Joseph Klock, Jr; Eduardo Silva Romero
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $320 million
DISPUTE: Border Timbers Ltd & Ors (Switzerland) v. Zimbabwe
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Steptoe & Johnson; Wiley Rein
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Kimbrough & Associes
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Yves Fortier; David A.R. Williams; An Chen
DISPUTE: Border Timbers Ltd & Ors (Switzerland) v. Zimbabwe
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Steptoe & Johnson; Wiley Rein
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Kimbrough & Associes
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Yves Fortier; David A.R. Williams; An Chen
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $305 million
DISPUTE: Les Laboratoires Servier S.A.S (France), Biofarma S.A.S (France), and Arts et Techniques du Progrès S.A.S (France) v. Republic of Poland
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL rules administered by the Permanent Court Of Arbitration/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Bernard Hanotiau; Marc Lalonde; William Park
DISPUTE: Les Laboratoires Servier S.A.S (France), Biofarma S.A.S (France), and Arts et Techniques du Progrès S.A.S (France) v. Republic of Poland
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL rules administered by the Permanent Court Of Arbitration/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Bernard Hanotiau; Marc Lalonde; William Park
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $300 million
DISPUTE: Muhammet Çap and Sehil In?aat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat; Raed Fathallah
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Julian D.M. Lew; Bernard Hanotiau; Laurence Boisson de Chazournes
DISPUTE: Muhammet Çap and Sehil In?aat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat; Raed Fathallah
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Julian D.M. Lew; Bernard Hanotiau; Laurence Boisson de Chazournes
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $300 million
DISPUTE: OPIC Karimun Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: McDermott Will & Emery; Konrad and Richman; K&L Gates
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Doug Jones; Philippe Sands; Guido Tawil
DISPUTE: OPIC Karimun Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: McDermott Will & Emery; Konrad and Richman; K&L Gates
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Doug Jones; Philippe Sands; Guido Tawil
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $300 million
DISPUTE: Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Josias Van Zyl (South Africa), The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust (South Africa), The Burmilla Trust (South Africa), Matsoku Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Motete Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Orange Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Patiseng Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), and Rampai Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa) v. Kingdom Of Lesotho
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling; Couzyn Hertzog & Horak
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Minister of Law & Constitutional Affairs; Webber Newdigate
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Doak Bishop; Justice N V Hurt
DISPUTE: Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Josias Van Zyl (South Africa), The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust (South Africa), The Burmilla Trust (South Africa), Matsoku Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Motete Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Orange Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), Patiseng Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa), and Rampai Diamonds (PTY) Limited (South Africa) v. Kingdom Of Lesotho
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling; Couzyn Hertzog & Horak
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Minister of Law & Constitutional Affairs; Webber Newdigate
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Doak Bishop; Justice N V Hurt
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $300 million
DISPUTE: Tenoch Holdings Ltd., Maxim Naumchenko and Andrey Poluektov v. Government of India
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Amarchand & Mangaldas
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATOR: Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Tenoch Holdings Ltd., Maxim Naumchenko and Andrey Poluektov v. Government of India
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Amarchand & Mangaldas
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATOR: Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $285 million
DISPUTE: TECO Energy (U.S.) v. Guatemala
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Alexis Mourre; William Park; Claus von Wobeser
DISPUTE: TECO Energy (U.S.) v. Guatemala
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Alexis Mourre; William Park; Claus von Wobeser
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $283 million
DISPUTE: Ruby Roz (Kazakhstan) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Alan Redfern; Joseph Neuhaus; Bruno Boesch
DISPUTE: Ruby Roz (Kazakhstan) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Alan Redfern; Joseph Neuhaus; Bruno Boesch
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $276 million
DISPUTE: Bernhard von Pezold & Ors (Germany and Switzerland) v. Republic of Zimbabwe
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Steptoe & Johnson; Wiley Rein
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Kimbrough & Associes
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; David A.R. Williams; An Chen
DISPUTE: Bernhard von Pezold & Ors (Germany and Switzerland) v. Republic of Zimbabwe
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Steptoe & Johnson; Wiley Rein
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Kimbrough & Associes
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; David A.R. Williams; An Chen
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $275 million
DISPUTE: Kilic Insaat Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Turkey) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris and London
ARBITRATORS: William Rowley; Philippe Sands; William Park
DISPUTE: Kilic Insaat Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Turkey) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris and London
ARBITRATORS: William Rowley; Philippe Sands; William Park
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $270 million
DISPUTE: Georg Gavrilovi? (Austria) and Gavrilovi? d.o.o. (Croatia) v. Republic of Croatia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie; Buterin & Posavec
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Matthias Scherer; Stanimir Alexandrov
DISPUTE: Georg Gavrilovi? (Austria) and Gavrilovi? d.o.o. (Croatia) v. Republic of Croatia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie; Buterin & Posavec
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Matthias Scherer; Stanimir Alexandrov
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $270 million
DISPUTE: Luigi Bosca (Italy) v. Republic of Lithuania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hughes Hubbard & Reed
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL (PCA)/Stockholm
ARBITRATORS: Marc Lalonde; Brigitte Stern; Daniel Price
DISPUTE: Luigi Bosca (Italy) v. Republic of Lithuania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hughes Hubbard & Reed
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL (PCA)/Stockholm
ARBITRATORS: Marc Lalonde; Brigitte Stern; Daniel Price
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $263 million
DISPUTE: Standard Chartered Bank (UK) v. United Republic of Tanzania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith Freehills; Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hunton & Williams; Mkono & Co Advocates
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Bartum Legum; Michael Pryles
DISPUTE: Standard Chartered Bank (UK) v. United Republic of Tanzania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith Freehills; Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hunton & Williams; Mkono & Co Advocates
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Bartum Legum; Michael Pryles
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $257 million
DISPUTE: EDF International S.A. (France), SAUR International S.A. (France), and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. (France) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Rattagan, Macchiavello, Arocena & Peña Robirosa Abogados
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Jesús Remón
DISPUTE: EDF International S.A. (France), SAUR International S.A. (France), and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. (France) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Rattagan, Macchiavello, Arocena & Peña Robirosa Abogados
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Jesús Remón
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $254 million
DISPUTE: Mercer Internationa Inc. (U.S.) v. Government of Canada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Sangra Moller
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Trade Law Bureau (JLTB) Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Toronto
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Zachary Douglas; Francisco Orrego Vicuña
DISPUTE: Mercer Internationa Inc. (U.S.) v. Government of Canada
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Arnold & Porter; Sangra Moller
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Trade Law Bureau (JLTB) Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Toronto
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Zachary Douglas; Francisco Orrego Vicuña
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $250 million
DISPUTE: DP World Callao S.R.L. (Peru), P&O Dover (Holdings) Limited (U..K), The Penninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (U..K) v. The Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Rodrigo Elias & Medrano
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case; Estudio Echecopar
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Claus von Wobeser
DISPUTE: DP World Callao S.R.L. (Peru), P&O Dover (Holdings) Limited (U..K), The Penninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (U..K) v. The Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Rodrigo Elias & Medrano
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case; Estudio Echecopar
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Claus von Wobeser
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $250 million
DISPUTE: Inna Gudavadze (Russia and Georgia) v. Georgia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Hogans Lovells
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: William Park; David Williams; Bernard Hanotiau
DISPUTE: Inna Gudavadze (Russia and Georgia) v. Georgia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Hogans Lovells
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: William Park; David Williams; Bernard Hanotiau
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $245 million
DISPUTE: BG Group Plc (U.K.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Marval O'Farrell & Mairal
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office; Gleason & Koatz
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez; Albert Jan van den Berg; Alejandro Garro
DISPUTE: BG Group Plc (U.K.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Marval O'Farrell & Mairal
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General’s Office; Gleason & Koatz
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez; Albert Jan van den Berg; Alejandro Garro
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $235 million
DISPUTE: Sanum Investments Limited (China) v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Lackey Hershman
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: City University of Hong Kong
ARBITRATOR: Andres Rigo Sureda
DISPUTE: Sanum Investments Limited (China) v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Lackey Hershman
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: City University of Hong Kong
ARBITRATOR: Andres Rigo Sureda
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $220 million
DISPUTE: D.P. World Callao S.R.L. (U.K.), P&O Dover (Holding) Limited (U.K.), Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (U.K.) v. Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Estudio Echecopar; Baker & McKenzie; White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Francisco Orrego Vicuna; Claus von Wobeser
DISPUTE: D.P. World Callao S.R.L. (U.K.), P&O Dover (Holding) Limited (U.K.), Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (U.K.) v. Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Estudio Echecopar; Baker & McKenzie; White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; Francisco Orrego Vicuna; Claus von Wobeser
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $218 million
DISPUTE: OAO Gazprom (Russian Federation) v. Republic of Lithuania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Tark Grunte Sutkiene; Lawin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Zurich
ARBITRATORS: Bruno Simma; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Christian Tomuschat
DISPUTE: OAO Gazprom (Russian Federation) v. Republic of Lithuania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Tark Grunte Sutkiene; Lawin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Zurich
ARBITRATORS: Bruno Simma; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Christian Tomuschat
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $200 million
DISPUTE: Khan Resources, Inc. (Canada) v. Government of Mongolia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hogan Lovells
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: David Williams; L. Yves Fortier; Bernard Hanotiau
DISPUTE: Khan Resources, Inc. (Canada) v. Government of Mongolia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Hogan Lovells
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: David Williams; L. Yves Fortier; Bernard Hanotiau
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $200 million
DISPUTE: Pacific Rim Cayman (U.S.) v. Republic of El Salvador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
DISPUTE: Pacific Rim Cayman (U.S.) v. Republic of El Salvador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Crowell & Moring
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $200 million
DISPUTE: Churchill Mining plc (Australia) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Hogan Lovells; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Minister of Law and Human Rights, Indonesia; Curtis Mallet-Prevost
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
DISPUTE: Churchill Mining plc (Australia) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Hogan Lovells; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Minister of Law and Human Rights, Indonesia; Curtis Mallet-Prevost
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $200 million
DISPUTE: El Paso Energy International Co. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Perez Alati; Pagbam
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Lucius Caflisch; Piero Bernardini; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: El Paso Energy International Co. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Perez Alati; Pagbam
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Lucius Caflisch; Piero Bernardini; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $200 million
DISPUTE: H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. (U.S.) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Crowell & Moring; Shalakany Law Office; Lalive Law Firm
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Hafez; Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Bernardo Cremades; Hamid Gharavi; Veijo Heiskanen
DISPUTE: H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. (U.S.) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Crowell & Moring; Shalakany Law Office; Lalive Law Firm
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Hafez; Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Bernardo Cremades; Hamid Gharavi; Veijo Heiskanen
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $200 million
DISPUTE: Sempra Energy International Co. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Vaughn Lowe; Kamal Hossain; David A.R. Williams
DISPUTE: Sempra Energy International Co. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Vaughn Lowe; Kamal Hossain; David A.R. Williams
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $200 million
DISPUTE: The Rompetrol Group N.V. (The Netherlands) v. Romania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive; Tanasescu & Associatii
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Sir Franklin Berman; Marc Lalonde; Donald Francis Donovan
DISPUTE: The Rompetrol Group N.V. (The Netherlands) v. Romania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive; Tanasescu & Associatii
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Sir Franklin Berman; Marc Lalonde; Donald Francis Donovan
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $200 million
DISPUTE: Tidewater Inc., et al. (U.S.);Tidewater Investment SRL (Barbados); Tidewater Caribe, C.A.(Venezuela) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Campbell McLachlan; Andres Rigo Sureda; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Tidewater Inc., et al. (U.S.);Tidewater Investment SRL (Barbados); Tidewater Caribe, C.A.(Venezuela) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Campbell McLachlan; Andres Rigo Sureda; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $187.2 million
DISPUTE: Vestey Group Limited (U.K.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Travieso Evans
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Fernando Mantilla-Serrano; Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kauffmann-Kohler; Horacio Grigera Naon; Pierre-Marie Dupuy
DISPUTE: Vestey Group Limited (U.K.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Travieso Evans
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Fernando Mantilla-Serrano; Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kauffmann-Kohler; Horacio Grigera Naon; Pierre-Marie Dupuy
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $185 million
DISPUTE: Iberdrola Energia SA (Spain) v. Republic of Guatemala
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Uría & Menéndez
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Eduardo Zuleta; Yves Derains; Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco
DISPUTE: Iberdrola Energia SA (Spain) v. Republic of Guatemala
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Uría & Menéndez
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Eduardo Zuleta; Yves Derains; Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $180 million
DISPUTE: Spyridon Roussalis (Greece) v. The Republic of Romania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Costea Partners; Stern Advisory Group
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Bernard Hanotiau; Michael Reisman; Andrea Giardina
DISPUTE: Spyridon Roussalis (Greece) v. The Republic of Romania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Costea Partners; Stern Advisory Group
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Bernard Hanotiau; Michael Reisman; Andrea Giardina
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $150 million
DISPUTE: Elecnor S.A. (Spain) and Isolux Corsán Concesiones S.A v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Hugo Perezcano Diaz; Alexis Mourre; Horacio Grigera Naon
DISPUTE: Elecnor S.A. (Spain) and Isolux Corsán Concesiones S.A v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Hugo Perezcano Diaz; Alexis Mourre; Horacio Grigera Naon
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $150 million
DISPUTE: Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) (U.S.) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; M & M Bomchil
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Cecil W.M. Abraham: Kamal Hossain; David A.R. Williams
DISPUTE: Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) (U.S.) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; M & M Bomchil
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Cecil W.M. Abraham: Kamal Hossain; David A.R. Williams
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $150 million
DISPUTE: Gambrinus, Corp. (Barbados) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Procuraduria General de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela; Hogan Lovells
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Marc Lalonde; Pierre-Marie Dupuy
DISPUTE: Gambrinus, Corp. (Barbados) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Procuraduria General de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela; Hogan Lovells
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Marc Lalonde; Pierre-Marie Dupuy
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $150 million
DISPUTE: Merck Sharpe & Dohme (I.A.) Corporation (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: PCA
ARBITRATORS: Franklin Berman; Stephen Schwebel; Bruno Simma
DISPUTE: Merck Sharpe & Dohme (I.A.) Corporation (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: PCA
ARBITRATORS: Franklin Berman; Stephen Schwebel; Bruno Simma
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $150 million
DISPUTE: Vincent J. Ryan (U.S.), Schooner Capital LLC (U.S.), and Atlantic Investment Partners LLC (U.S.) v. Republic of Poland
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Kocha?ski Zi?ba R?pa?a and Partners; Mackrell
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: K&L Gates
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Claus von Wobeser; Makhdoom Ali Khan
DISPUTE: Vincent J. Ryan (U.S.), Schooner Capital LLC (U.S.), and Atlantic Investment Partners LLC (U.S.) v. Republic of Poland
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Kocha?ski Zi?ba R?pa?a and Partners; Mackrell
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: K&L Gates
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Francisco Orrego Vicuña; Claus von Wobeser; Makhdoom Ali Khan
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $144 million
DISPUTE: E.D.F. International (France) v. Hungary
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Kende, Molnár-Bíró, Katona
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: PCA/Zurich
ARBITRATORS: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Pierre-Marie Dupuy; Albert Jan van den Berg
DISPUTE: E.D.F. International (France) v. Hungary
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Kende, Molnár-Bíró, Katona
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: PCA/Zurich
ARBITRATORS: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Pierre-Marie Dupuy; Albert Jan van den Berg
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $140 million
DISPUTE: Rurelec plc (U.K.) and Guaracachi America Inc (U.S.) v. Plurinational State of Bolivia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Guevara & Gutierrez
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Dechert; Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL (PCA)
ARBITRATORS: J M Júdice; Manuel Conthe; Raul Vinuesa
DISPUTE: Rurelec plc (U.K.) and Guaracachi America Inc (U.S.) v. Plurinational State of Bolivia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Guevara & Gutierrez
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Dechert; Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL (PCA)
ARBITRATORS: J M Júdice; Manuel Conthe; Raul Vinuesa
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $135 million
DISPUTE: OAO Gazprom (Russian Federation) v. Republic of Lithuania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Tark Grunte Sutkiene; Lawin
ARBITRAL SITE: Paris
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Charles Brower; J. Christopher Thomas
DISPUTE: OAO Gazprom (Russian Federation) v. Republic of Lithuania
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Winston & Strawn
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling; Tark Grunte Sutkiene; Lawin
ARBITRAL SITE: Paris
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Charles Brower; J. Christopher Thomas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $133 million
DISPUTE: Hortensia Margarita Shortt (Mauritius) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Javier Manstretta; Ignacio de Leon
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
DISPUTE: Hortensia Margarita Shortt (Mauritius) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Javier Manstretta; Ignacio de Leon
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $130 million
DISPUTE: European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. Slovak Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Specht Bohm
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: PCA/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Christopher Greenwood; Brigitte Stern; Alexander Petsche
DISPUTE: European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. Slovak Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Specht Bohm
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: PCA/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Christopher Greenwood; Brigitte Stern; Alexander Petsche
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $130 million
DISPUTE: Ternium SA (Luxembourg and Consorcio Siderugia Amazonia SL (Spain) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
DISPUTE: Ternium SA (Luxembourg and Consorcio Siderugia Amazonia SL (Spain) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Attorney General’s Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $125 million
DISPUTE: ECE Projektmanagement International GmbH (Germany) v. Czech Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: While & Case; Norton Rose; Gray’s Inn Square
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Squire Sanders
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/London
ARBITRATORS: Sir Franklin Berman; Andreas Bucher; J. Christopher Thomas
DISPUTE: ECE Projektmanagement International GmbH (Germany) v. Czech Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: While & Case; Norton Rose; Gray’s Inn Square
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Squire Sanders
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/London
ARBITRATORS: Sir Franklin Berman; Andreas Bucher; J. Christopher Thomas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $125 million
DISPUTE: InterTrade Holding BmgH (Germany) v. Czech Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Python & Peter
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Noerr; Squire Sanders
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Henri Alvarez; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: InterTrade Holding BmgH (Germany) v. Czech Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Python & Peter
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Noerr; Squire Sanders
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Paris
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Henri Alvarez; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $120 million
DISPUTE: Copper Mesa Mining Corporation (Canada) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: McMillan
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive; Procuraduría General del Estado
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: V. V. Vedder; Bernardo Cremades; Bruno Simma
DISPUTE: Copper Mesa Mining Corporation (Canada) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: McMillan
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lalive; Procuraduría General del Estado
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: V. V. Vedder; Bernardo Cremades; Bruno Simma
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $120 million
DISPUTE: Indorama International Finance Limited (U.K.) v. Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Donald McRae; Christoph Schreuer; Zachary Douglas
DISPUTE: Indorama International Finance Limited (U.K.) v. Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Donald McRae; Christoph Schreuer; Zachary Douglas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $120 million
DISPUTE: Murphy Exploration (U.S.) and Production Company International (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Perez, Bustamante & Ponce
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Bernard Hanotiou; Kaj Hober; Georges Abi Saab
DISPUTE: Murphy Exploration (U.S.) and Production Company International (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Perez, Bustamante & Ponce
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Bernard Hanotiou; Kaj Hober; Georges Abi Saab
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $119 million
DISPUTE: Impregilo SpA (Italy) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Hans Danelius; Charles Brower; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Impregilo SpA (Italy) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Hans Danelius; Charles Brower; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $116 million
DISPUTE: Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon (Belgium) v. Republic of the Philippines
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Stanimir Alexandrov; J. Christopher Thomas
DISPUTE: Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon (Belgium) v. Republic of the Philippines
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Pierre Tercier; Stanimir Alexandrov; J. Christopher Thomas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $110.7 million
DISPUTE: Veolia Propreté (France) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Abdulqawu Ahmed Yusuf; Klaus Sachs; Zachary Douglas
DISPUTE: Veolia Propreté (France) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Abdulqawu Ahmed Yusuf; Klaus Sachs; Zachary Douglas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $110 million
DISPUTE: Convial Callao S.A. (Argentina) and CCI-Compania de Concesiones de Infrastructura S.A. v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dechert
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Vaughan Lowe; J. Christopher Thomas; Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Convial Callao S.A. (Argentina) and CCI-Compania de Concesiones de Infrastructura S.A. v. Republic of Peru
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dechert
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Vaughan Lowe; J. Christopher Thomas; Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $109 million
DISPUTE: Hochtief AG (Germany) v. . Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Kelley Drye & Warren
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Vaughan Lowe; J. Christopher Thomas; Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Hochtief AG (Germany) v. . Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Kelley Drye & Warren
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Vaughan Lowe; J. Christopher Thomas; Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $104 million
DISPUTE: Alapli Elektrik BV the Netherlands) v. Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins; Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Mark Lalonde; Brigitte Stern; Bernard Hanotiau; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Makhdoom Ali Khan
DISPUTE: Alapli Elektrik BV the Netherlands) v. Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins; Volterra Fietta
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: William Park; Mark Lalonde; Brigitte Stern; Bernard Hanotiau; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Makhdoom Ali Khan
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $103 million
DISPUTE: Brandes Investment Partners (U.S.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; Travieso, Evans, Arria, Rengel & Paz
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Rodrigo Oreamuno; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: Brandes Investment Partners (U.S.) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; Travieso, Evans, Arria, Rengel & Paz
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Rodrigo Oreamuno; Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $100 million
DISPUTE: Adria Beteiligungs GmbH (Austria) v. Republic of Croatia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: NautaDutilh
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Hanotiau & van den Berg
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Kaj Hobér; Neil Kaplan; Hrvoje Sikiric
DISPUTE: Adria Beteiligungs GmbH (Austria) v. Republic of Croatia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: NautaDutilh
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Hanotiau & van den Berg
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Kaj Hobér; Neil Kaplan; Hrvoje Sikiric
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $100 million
DISPUTE: Bozbey ?n?aat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited ?irketi et al. (Turkey) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Bailey Law
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Gavan Griffith; Jeffrey Hertzfeld; John Fordham
DISPUTE: Bozbey ?n?aat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited ?irketi et al. (Turkey) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Bailey Law
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Gavan Griffith; Jeffrey Hertzfeld; John Fordham
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Agility for Public Warehousing Company (Kuwait) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Kirkland & Ellis
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Qamar Vardag & Associates
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Charles Brower; Salim Moollan
DISPUTE: Agility for Public Warehousing Company (Kuwait) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Kirkland & Ellis
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Qamar Vardag & Associates
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Charles Brower; Salim Moollan
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Azurix Corp. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gustaf Möller; Bernard Hanotiau; Donald McRae
DISPUTE: Azurix Corp. (U.S.) v. Republic of Argentina
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Argentine Attorney General's Office
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gustaf Möller; Bernard Hanotiau; Donald McRae
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Phillip Morris Brands Sarl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland), and Abal Herminos S.A. (Uruguay) v. The Republic of Uruguay
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Lalive & Associates; Sidley and Austin
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Gary Born; Jame Crawford
DISPUTE: Phillip Morris Brands Sarl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland), and Abal Herminos S.A. (Uruguay) v. The Republic of Uruguay
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Lalive & Associates; Sidley and Austin
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: Piero Bernardini; Gary Born; Jame Crawford
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Garanti Koza LLP (U.K.) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Gur Law Firm
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: John Townsend; George Lambrou; Laurence Boisson de Chazournes
DISPUTE: Garanti Koza LLP (U.K.) v. Turkmenistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Gur Law Firm
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: John Townsend; George Lambrou; Laurence Boisson de Chazournes
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Highbury International (Venezuela) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Mezgravis & Associates
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Enrique Barros; Guido Santiago; Claus von Wobeser
DISPUTE: Highbury International (Venezuela) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Mezgravis & Associates
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Enrique Barros; Guido Santiago; Claus von Wobeser
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Ioannis Kardassopoulos(Greece) and Ron Fuchs (Israel) v. Republic of Georgia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lathan & Watkins; DLA Piper
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Francisco Orrego Vicüna; Vaughan Lowe
DISPUTE: Ioannis Kardassopoulos(Greece) and Ron Fuchs (Israel) v. Republic of Georgia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Lathan & Watkins; DLA Piper
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Francisco Orrego Vicüna; Vaughan Lowe
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Joseph Lemire (U.S.) v. Ukraine
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Derains & Gharavi
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Juan Fernandez-Armesto; Jan Paulsson; Jurgen Voss
DISPUTE: Joseph Lemire (U.S.) v. Ukraine
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Derains & Gharavi
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Juan Fernandez-Armesto; Jan Paulsson; Jurgen Voss
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: JSC BTA Bank (Kazakhistan) v. Kyrgyz Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd.
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Daniel Bethlehem; Stephen Schwebel; Bruno Simma
DISPUTE: JSC BTA Bank (Kazakhistan) v. Kyrgyz Republic
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: White & Case
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd.
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: Daniel Bethlehem; Stephen Schwebel; Bruno Simma
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Ali Allawi (U.S.) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Eversheds
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Director (legal) of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources of the Government of Pakistan
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: PCA (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Charles Brower; J. Christopher Thomas
DISPUTE: Ali Allawi (U.S.) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta; Eversheds
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Director (legal) of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources of the Government of Pakistan
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: PCA (UNCITRAL)
ARBITRATORS: L. Yves Fortier; Charles Brower; J. Christopher Thomas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Nova Scotia Power (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Torys
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Hans van Houtte; Raul Vinuesa; David A.R. Williams
DISPUTE: Nova Scotia Power (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Torys
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Foley Hoag
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
ARBITRATORS: Hans van Houtte; Raul Vinuesa; David A.R. Williams
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Planet Mining Pty Ltd (Australia) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Minister of Law and Human Rights, Indonesia
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Albert Jan van den Berg; Michael Hwang
DISPUTE: Planet Mining Pty Ltd (Australia) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Minister of Law and Human Rights, Indonesia
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler; Albert Jan van den Berg; Michael Hwang
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Rafat Rizvi (U.K.) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: 12 Gray’s Inn Chambers; KarimSyah
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Gavan Griffith; M Sornorajah; Joan Donaghue
DISPUTE: Rafat Rizvi (U.K.) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: 12 Gray’s Inn Chambers; KarimSyah
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Gavan Griffith; M Sornorajah; Joan Donaghue
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Hesham al-Warraq (Saudi Arabia) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: 12 Gray’s Inn Chambers; KarimSyah
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (Organisation of Islamic Conferences Investment Agreement)/Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Bernardo Cremades; Fali Nariman; Michael Hwang
DISPUTE: Hesham al-Warraq (Saudi Arabia) v. Republic of Indonesia
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Dentons
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: 12 Gray’s Inn Chambers; KarimSyah
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (Organisation of Islamic Conferences Investment Agreement)/Singapore
ARBITRATORS: Bernardo Cremades; Fali Nariman; Michael Hwang
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Rovime Inversiones Sicav S.A (Spain), Quasar De va lores Sicav S.A., Orgor de va Sicav S.A, and GBI Gooo Sicav S.A. v. Russian Federation
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Baker Botts
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/Stockholm
ARBITRATORS: Charles Brower; Toby Landau; Jan Paulsson
DISPUTE: Rovime Inversiones Sicav S.A (Spain), Quasar De va lores Sicav S.A., Orgor de va Sicav S.A, and GBI Gooo Sicav S.A. v. Russian Federation
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Baker Botts
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/Stockholm
ARBITRATORS: Charles Brower; Toby Landau; Jan Paulsson
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe (France) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gabriel Bottini; Klaus Michael Sachs; Charles Brower
DISPUTE: Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe (France) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Gabriel Bottini; Klaus Michael Sachs; Charles Brower
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: ST AD GmbH (Germany) v. Republic of Bulgaria
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arsène Verny
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Bohuslav Klein; Christopher Thomas
DISPUTE: ST AD GmbH (Germany) v. Republic of Bulgaria
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Arsène Verny
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The Hague
ARBITRATORS: Brigitte Stern; Bohuslav Klein; Christopher Thomas
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Transban Investments Corp. (Barbados) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: DLA Piper
ARBITRATORS: Pedro Martinez-Fraga
DISPUTE: Transban Investments Corp. (Barbados) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: DLA Piper
ARBITRATORS: Pedro Martinez-Fraga
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Venoklin Holding B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: JIMÉNEZ Y LIÉVANO ABOGADOS
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Enrique Gómez-Pinzón; Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco
DISPUTE: Venoklin Holding B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: JIMÉNEZ Y LIÉVANO ABOGADOS
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
ARBITRATORS: Enrique Gómez-Pinzón; Rodrigo Oreamuno Blanco
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: National Gas S.A.E (Egypt) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shalakany Law Office
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; L. Yves Fortier; Brigitte Stern
DISPUTE: National Gas S.A.E (Egypt) v. Arab Republic of Egypt
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: Shalakany Law Office
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION: ICSID
ARBITRATORS: V.V. Veeder; L. Yves Fortier; Brigitte Stern
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $100 million
DISPUTE: Peter Allard (Canada) v. Government of Barbados
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: McMillan Binch
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc/UNCITRAL, New York (Permanent Court of Arbitration)
ARBITRATORS: Gavin Griffiths; Michael Reisman; Andrew Newcombe
DISPUTE: Peter Allard (Canada) v. Government of Barbados
CLAIMANT'S COUNSEL: McMillan Binch
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: Volterra Fietta
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc/UNCITRAL, New York (Permanent Court of Arbitration)
ARBITRATORS: Gavin Griffiths; Michael Reisman; Andrew Newcombe
Correction, 7/17/2013: An earlier version of this chart omitted David A. Pawlek LLC from the list of respondent's counsel in Slovak Gas Holding v. the Slovak Republic. We regret the error.
Update, 7/17/2013: The summary of the dispute Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey has been updated to reflect a May 2013 ruling in the case.
Methodology/Sources:
The Arbitration Scorecard, which publishes every other year, covers international arbitrations (not limited to Europe) that were active in the previous two years (e.g. the 2015 Arbitration Scorecard will cover years 2013 and 2014). ALM Legal Intelligence gathers the data and compiles into contract and investment treaty arbitrations in which at least $1 billion is at stake. Because many arbitrations are confidential, neither list is comprehensive. Many big cases may enter the public domain through collateral litigation, press coverage, or securities disclosures.However, some large arbitrations remain undisclosed because they are at a nearly stage, the parties are nonpublic, the risk of liability is spread among members of a consortium, or the company is so large that it contends that the dispute is immaterial.
We relied primarily on information supplied by lawyers involved in the cases, supplemented in some cases by arbitration or court papers, securities disclosures, and media reports.In many cases we have had to rely on information from only one side in the dispute, and we were not able to obtain a response from the other side in all cases. The cooperating lawyers are not identified. The “amount in controversy”in a case represents the sum of claims and counterclaims. Case values are based on lawyers'' representations and are usually approximate. Survey participants were asked to express all amounts in U.S. dollars at exchange rates as of December of the previous year.
Among the abbreviations used in the charts are BIT (bilateral investment treaty); ICC (International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration); ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes); LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration); SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce); and UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law).
The use of an arbitrator to settle a dispute. International Arbitrators Specializing in International Investment and Commercial Arbitration. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteInvestment Arbitration
Thankyou emily ,
ReplyDeleteFirst comment on the blog .Hope you find it interesting .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing me such a nice information.I hope you will share more infomation about the Arbitration in Islamabad,
ReplyDeleteArbitration in Islamabad