OAO NK Yukos (Russia) v. Kravin Investments Ltd., White Pearl Investments Ltd., Marthacello Co. Ltd., N.P. Gemini Holdings Ltd., Heflinham Holdings Ltd., and Kindselia Holdings Ltd.
LCIA, London
Stakes: $28 billion (including $9 billion counterclaim)
Largest commercial arbitration in the world. In September 2004, while fighting for its survival in Russia, Yukos filed an arbitration against entities controlled by Roman Abramovich and other shareholders in rival Russian oil firm OAO Sibneft. The dispute arises out of an agreement for Yukos to acquire 92 percent of Sibneft shares. Sibneft announced in November 2003 that the deal would not proceed, and Yukos never established operational control. In 2004 Russian courts froze Yukos' 35 percent bloc of Sibneft stock, for which Yukos had paid $3 billion in cash, and canceled an issue of Yukos stock that was to be swapped for a reported 57 percent of Sibneft shares. Final hearing on the merits is scheduled for October 2007.
Claimants' Counsel: C. Mark Baker, Kevin O'Gorman, and Jonathan Sutcliffe of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston
Respondents' Counsel: Paul Mitchard of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London
Arbitrators: Marc Lalonde of Strikeman Elliott in Montreal (chair); Jeffrey Hertzfeld of Salans in Paris; Kenneth Rokison, QC, of 3 Essex Court in London
Yemen Exploration and Production Company (U.S.) v. Republic of Yemen
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $10.9 billion (including $8 billion counterclaim)
Believed to be the largest arbitration in the ICC. A joint venture between Hunt Oil Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp., YEPC was thrown out of Yemen in November 2005 after 20 years of operations. Claimant contends that a five-year extension agreement was completed. The Republic of Yemen maintains that the extension agreement required parliamentary approval. It seeks $8 billion for claimant's alleged failure to comply with tax and environmental regulation, and to implement "Yemenization," a program for local worker training. Hearing on the merits set for September.
Claimants' Counsel: Michael Goldberg of Baker Botts in Houston
Respondents' Counsel: Ben Knowles of Clyde & Co. in London
Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris (president); Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & Van den Berg in Brussels; V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London
The Czech Republic and The National Property Fund of the Czech Republic v. Nomura Principal Investment PLC (U.K.)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Zurich
Stakes: $8.4 billion
This case arises out of the privatization sale of shares in a major Czech bank to Nomura and its Saluka Investments subsidiary. The tribunal asserted jursidiction although Nomura had not signed the purchase agreement, and the Swiss Supreme Court found Nomura to be bound by its waiver of the right to appeal the award. But the case settled confidentially in autumn 2006 after the Czech Republic was held in breach of its fair and equitable treatment duty in the related treaty claim brought by Saluka against the Czech Republic.
Claimants' Counsel: George von Mehren of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland
Respondents' Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Peter Turner, Lisa Bingham, and Laurence Burger of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Ian Taylor, Robert Fell, and Toby Robinson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London
Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland (president); Yves Derains of Derains & Associés; Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & Van den Berg in Brussels
German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing v. Toll Collect GbR (Germany), DaimlerChrysler Financial Services AG (Germany), and Deutsche Telekom AG (Germany)
Ad hoc, Berlin
Stakes: $7.6 billion (including $800 million counterclaim)
Germany seeks lost revenues and contractual penalties for the Toll Collect consortium's alleged delay in constructing and operating a high-tech toll collection system for heavy trucks on German highways. The toll collecting project is a public-private partnership (PPP) involving Deutsche Telekom, DaimlerChrysler, and France's Cofiroute S.A. Briefing is under way.
Claimants' Counsel: Klaus Gunther of Linklaters in Cologne and Kai Pritzsche of Linklaters in Berlin; Dirk-Reiner Martens and Holger Peters of Beiten Burkhardt in Munich
Respondents' Counsel: Georg Thoma and Rainer Wilke of Shearman & Sterling in Dusseldorf; Klaus Becher, general counsel of DaimlerChrysler Financial Services AG in Frankfurt; Manfred Balz, general counsel of Deutsche Telekom AG in Bonn; Peter Heckel and Henning Balz of Hengeler Mueller in Berlin
Arbitrators: Gunter Hirsch, President of the German Federal High Court (president); Horst Eidenmuller of the University of Munich; Claus-Wilhelm Canaris of the University of Munich
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (U.S.) v. SONATRACH (Algeria); SONATRACH v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), location to be determined
Stakes: $5 billion
The parties initiated conciliation proceedings against each other in summer 2006, regarding SONATRACH's request to renegotiate a long-term oil production contract in light of the new hydrocarbons law passed by Algeria in 2005. The stakes are considerable if the dispute evolves to encompass the exceptional profits tax passed by Algeria in 2006. Anadarko has estimated that this tax, if imposed on the difference between $30 and $60 a barrel, would cost it $225 million annually, and the company's production contracts in Algeria run for an additional 25 years. The parties submitted memorials to a three-member conciliation board, selected under standard arbitration rules. In February 2007, the board issued a nonbinding recommendation. If the parties do not reach agreement on that basis, either may initiate a binding arbitration under UNCITRAL rules.
Claimants' Counsel: John Bowman of Fulbright and Jaworski in Houston
Respondents' Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Philippe Pinsolle, and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Arbitrators: To be determined
Telenor East Invest A.S. (Norway) v. Eco Telecom Ltd. (Gibraltar) and others
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Geneva
Stakes: $5 billion
A struggle for control of Russia's No. 2 cell phone firm, valued around $20 billion, between Norway's Telenor, which owns 27 percent, and Russia's Alfa Group, which owns over 42 percent. Telenor claimed the right to nominate five directors under the shareholders agreement, with the fifth requiring mutual consent. Alfa's Eco attacked the agreement's validity and claimed the right under Russian law to appoint all nine directors. An interim award in January 2007 found the shareholder agreement to be enforceable.
Claimants' Counsel: Robert Sills of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in New York and Peter O'Driscoll of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in London
Respondents' Counsel: Edward Schorr of Lovells in New York
Arbitrators: Charles Adams, Jr. of Hogan & Hartson in Geneva (chair); Gerald Aksen of New York; Benedict Fontanet of Fontanet & Jeandin in Geneva
Polski Koncern Naftowy ORLEN S.A. (Poland) v. OJSC Yukos Oil Corporation (Russia)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London
Stakes: $4.5 billion (including $3 billion counterclaim)
Poland's largest oil company, PKN, cried breach of contract after Petroval, the trading arm of Yukos Oil Co., stopped supplying oil from Yukos' Lithuanian refinery during the company's fight for survival against Russian tax prosecution. Yukos argued that its political troubles qualified as force majeure and excused it from the contract. Settled in January 2006 when Yukos International UK B.V. sold its controlling stake in the refinery to PKN for $1.5 billion.
Claimants' Counsel: Andrei Yakovlev of Dewey Ballantine in London
Respondents' Counsel: C. Mark Baker, Kevin O'Gorman, and Jonathan Sutcliffe of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston
Arbitrators: David Williams, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; J. Martin Hunter of Essex Court Chambers in London; J. William Rowley, QC, of McMillan Binch in Toronto
Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. (Norway) v. Storm LLC (Ukraine)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), New York
Stakes: $4 billion
Another fight between Telenor and Alfa, this one for control of the Ukrainian mobile phone leader, Kyivstar, valued at about $8 billion. Norway's Telenor owns 56.5 percent of Kyivstar, and Russia's Alfa Group owns 43.5 percent. The Alfa-affiliated respondent seeks to invalidate the purported shareholders agreement and to obtain equal representation on the board of directors. In December 2006, Telenor persuaded a federal court in New York to enjoin a Ukrainian court injunction and to allow the arbitration to proceed.
Claimants' Counsel: Robert Sills of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in New York and Peter O'Driscoll of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in London
Respondents' Counsel: Pieter van Tol of Lovells in New York
Arbitrators: Kenneth Feinberg of The Feinberg Group in Washington, D.C. (President); Gregory Craig of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.; William Jentes of Chicago
Sonera Holding B.V. (Sweden) v. Cukurova Holding A.S. (Turkey) and Cukurova Investments N.V. (Netherlands Antilles)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $3.1 billion
Sonera sought a declaration validating its March 2007 agreement to buy a 27 percent stake in Turkcell Holding A.S. from the Turkish conglomerate Cukurova at a price of $3.1 billion and thereby gain control of Turkey's leading cell phone operator. Cukurova maintains that it was free to take a later higher bid from Russia's Alfa group. A partial award in January 2007 held the share purchase agreement to be valid.
Claimants' Counsel: John Hardiman of Sullivan & Cromwell in London and James Carter of Sullivan & Cromwell in New York
Respondents' Counsel: Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva; Xavier Favre-Bulle of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva; Ziya Akinci of Akinci Law Office in Istanbul
Arbitrators: Michael Schneider of Lalive in Geneva (chair); Pierre Karrer of Zurich; Christian Rumpf of Germany
TELIASONERA FINLAND OYJ (Finland) v. Cukurova Holding A.S. (Turkey) and Turkiye Genel Sigorta A.S. (Turkey)
ICC, Vienna
Stakes: $3.1 billion
A parallel claim in the struggle for the Turkish cell phone operator Turkcell, brought by Sonera's parent company, TeliaSonera. This half of the dispute has proceeded more slowly, with witness hearings being held in early 2007.
Claimants' Counsel: John Hardiman of Sullivan & Cromwell in London and James Carter of Sullivan & Cromwell in New York
Respondents' Counsel: Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva; Xavier Favre-Bulle of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva; Ziya Akinci of Akinci Law Office in Istanbul
Arbitrators: Andreas Reiner of Vienna (cChair); Pierre Karrer of Zurich; Thomas Webster of Paris
Vivendi Universal S.A. (France) and Vivendi Telecom International S.A. (France) v. Elektrim S.A. (Poland)
LCIA, London
Stakes: $3 billion (including counterclaim of up to $400 million)
Battle between Elektrim and Vivendi Universal SA for control of their joint venture, Electrimtelecommunicaja SA, which controls central Europe's largest mobile phone operator, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa Sp. z o.o. The first partial award, on the validity of the parties' joint venture agreement, was decided in favor of the claimant, then unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court in London. Arbitration hearings on liability and damages held in early 2007. Vivendi is pursuing related litigation in U.S. courts against Deutsche Telekom.
Claimants' Counsel: Sarah François-Poncet of Salans in Paris and Dariusz Oleszczuk of Salans in Warsaw; David Kavanagh of Watson, Farley & Williams in London
Respondents' Counsel: Richard Black of Barlow Lyde & Gilbert in London; Stanislaw Soltysinski and Marcin Olechowski of Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak in Warsaw; Richard Millett, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London
Arbitrators: Wolfgang Peter of Python & Peter in Geneva (chair); Alan Redfern of One Essex Court in London; Jerzy Rajski of Warsaw
SONATRACH (Algeria) v. BP Exploration (El Djazair) Limited (Bahamas), BP Exploration Operating Company Limited (U.K.), and BP Corporation North America Inc. (U.S.)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Geneva
Stakes: $2.35 billion
BP and SONATRACH are slugging out a pair of Geneva arbitrations under separate contracts, one under Algerian law, and the other under Texas law, allocating responsibility to increase the rate of recovery in an oil field. The case turns on complex questions of contractual risk allocation and reservoir engineering. Hearings on the merits were completed in early 2007.
Claimants' Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Philippe Pinsolle, and Todd Wetmore of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Elie Kleiman, and Constantine Partasides of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris
Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland; Pierre Mayer of Dechert in Paris; Laurent Aynes of Paris
T-Mobile International (Germany) v. Elektrim Telecommunicaja SA (Poland) and Elektrim S.A. (Poland)
Vienna International Arbitral Centre, Vienna
Stakes: $2.2 billion (including $500 million counterclaim)
Another battle for control of Central Europe's largest mobile phone operator, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa Sp. z o.o. In August 1999 Elektrim purportedly bought 51 percent of PTC. Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile subsidiary disputed the validity of Elektrim's purchase, claiming that it had a right of first refusal. The panel rejected this claim in August 2003. In a second arbitration heard by the same panel, T-Mobile argued that the transfer of Elektrim's shares into Elektrim Telecommunicaja SA, a joint venture with Vivendi Universal S.A., violated PTC's corporate charter. In December 2004 the panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. This ruling continues to be the subject of extensive challenges in the Austrian and Polish courts.
Claimants' Counsel: Gary Born of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in London
Respondents' Counsel: David Kavanagh of Watson, Farley & Williams in London; Toby Landau of Essex Court Chambers in London; Stanislaw Soltysinski and Marcin Olechowski of Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak in Warsaw
Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris (chair); Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva; Jerzy Rajski of Warsaw
Atlantic LNG 2/3 Company of Trinidad and Tobago Unlimited v. Repsol YPF, S.A. (Spain) and Naturcorp Multiservicios, S.A./Sociedad de gas de Euskadi (Spain)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), New York
Stakes: $2 billion
The Trinidad investment vehicle of energy firms including BP plc and BG Group, the claimant contends that liquefied natural gas intended for sale in Spain has been diverted from Trinidad to the U.S. East Coast in pursuit of higher prices, in violation of long-term contracts. Respondents contend that their contracts allow destination flexibility. Claimant seeks new pricing and/or other contractual relief. Each of these two arbitrations involves the second and third trains of LNG developed in Trinidad. A related claim arising from an earlier Spanish gas deal with Trinidad has been filed by the Atlantic LNG Company against Gas Natural.
Claimants' Counsel: Michael Hirschfeld and Michael Nolan of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York
Respondents' Counsel: Gary Born of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in London; Ronald Rolfe of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York
Arbitrators: To be determined
Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Turkey) v. Motorola Credit Corporation, Inc. (U.S.)
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $2 billion
The Turkish cell phone operator Telsim, then owned by Turkey's Uzan clan, tried to avoid liability for repaying Motorola $2 billion in loans, pleading economic force majeure. However, the panel awarded Motorola more than $2 billion on its counterclaims in 2005 ("Turkish Bath," Focus Europe, Winter 2007). Turkey seized Telsim, and after auctioning the company to Vodafone plc, settled Motorola's claims with a payment of $900 million in 2006.
Claimants' Counsel: Thomas Muller of Homburger in Zurich; Christian Schmid and Reto Arpugus of Bratschi Emch in Zurich
Respondents' Counsel: Howard Stahl and Steven Davidson of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C.; Tom Sprange of Steptoe & Johnson in London
Arbitrators: Daniel Wehrli of Gloor & Sieger in Zurich (Chair); Hans Rudolf-Sterner of Zurich; Marc Blessing of Bar & Karrer in Zurich
New Brunswick Power Holding Corp. (Canada) v. Bitumenes Orinoco, S.A. (Venezuela) and Petroleos De Venezuela S.A. (Venezuela)
AAA, New York
Stakes: $1.86 billion
New Brunswick Power has asked a U.S. district court in Manhattan to compel the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and its subsidiary BITOR to arbitrate a dispute concerning the supply of Orimulsion, a unique clean fuel developed in Venezuela. Claimant argues that PDVSA's refusal to supply Orimulsion harms it and other utilities that undertook costly conversions to burn Orimulsion. The district court has denied summary judgment and cleared the way for a trial on contract formation. PDVSA has appealed an order requiring limited jurisdictional discovery to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Claimants' Counsel: Peter Thomas of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in Washington, D.C.; Kenneth McCullogh, QC, of Stewart McKelvey in St. John, New Brunswick
Respondents' Counsel: E. Leo Milonas of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in New York
Arbitrators: Joseph McLaughlin of Heller Ehrman in New York
Rumeli Telefon Sitemleri A.S. (Turkey) v. Motorola Credit Corporation, Inc. (U.S.)
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $1.8 billlion
Another dispute arising out of Motorola's Turkish cell phone adventure. This case involved the terms of the share pledge agreement under which the Telsim affiliate Rumeli gave Motorola security for $1.8 billion in vendor financing. Before this claim could proceed to judgment, Turkey seized Telsim, and after auctioning the company to Vodafone plc, settled Motorola's claim with a payment of $900 million in May 2006.
Claimants' Counsel: Thomas Muller of Homburger in Zurich; Christian Schmid and Reto Arpugus of Bratschi Emch in Zurich
Respondents' Counsel: Howard Stahl and Steven Davidson of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C.; Tom Sprange of Steptoe & Johnson in London
Arbitrators: Daniel Wehrli of Gloor & Sieger in Zurich (chair); Hans Rudolf-Sterner of Zurich; Marc Blessing of Bar & Karrer in Zurich
Electricité de France (France) v. Capitalia SpA (Italy), Banca Intesa SpA (Italy), and IMI Investimenti SpA (Italy)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $1.6 billion
France's EDF invested billions of euros in the Italian energy sector and entered into a series of put and call option agreements with shareholders of Italy's Edison S.p.A., including the three respondent banks. EDF tried to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy passed legislation (in violation of E.U. law) blocking it from reaping the benefit of its purchases and controlling Edison. An agreement was reached between the French and Italian governments in December 2005, and EDF was able to pursue its expansion in Europe by taking over Edison through Italenergia, a joint venture with Transalpina de Energia SpA of Italy.
Claimants' Counsel: Philippe Pinsolle and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Francesco Carbonetti of Studio Legale Carbonetti in Rome
Arbitrators: Klaus Sachs of CMS Hasche Sigle Eschenlohr Peltzer Schafer in Munich; Pietro Trimarchi of Milan
BK Trade 000 (Russia) v. PTT Post and Telecommunications Authority of Serbia
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $1.5 billion (including $1 billion counterclaim)
The Russian majority investor in one of Serbia's two cell phone operators claimed that its junior partner, the Serbian telecommunications agency, threatened to seize its investment. Settled confidentially in April 2006.
Claimants' Counsel: Michael Polkinghorne of White & Case in Paris; George Foster of Dechert in New York; Stephen Berti of Zurich
Respondents' Counsel: Rajko Ignjacevic and Milorad Ignjacevic of Ignjacevic Lawfirm in Belgrade
Arbitrators: Marc Blessing of Bar & Karrer in Zurich (chair); Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne; Dobrosav Mitrovic of Belgrade
IPOC International Growth Fund (Bermuda) v. OAO CT-Mobile (Russia), OAO Telecominvest (Russia), and TeliaSonera AB (Sweden)
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm
Stakes: $1.5 billion
Dispute over the 25 percent stake held by OAO CT-Mobile in the Russian mobile phone operator MegaFon. IPOC claims to have bought the stake in summer 2003 from LV Finance Group Limited. LV and CT-Mobile say that the stake was sold that summer in a series of other transactions to an affiliate of the Russian consortium Alfa Group. In this Stockholm arbitration, IPOC sued Megafon shareholders to affirm the shareholder agreement, which, IPOC argues, bars Alfa from simultaneously owning stakes in Megafon and in MegaFon's rival OAO VimpelCom. On April 30, 2007, the Stockholm panel ruled against IPOC, and found the relevant portion of the shareholder agreement to be unenforceable under Russian law ("Mud Bath," The American Lawyer , June 2007).
Claimants' Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer of Winston & Strawn in Geneva and London; Bo Nilsson of Rydin Carlsten in Stockholm
Respondents' Counsel: Nigel Rawding, Daniel Kalderimis, and Patrick Taylor of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London and New York; Hans Bagner of Vinge in Stockholm; Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert and Sven Oswald of Latham & Watkins in Hamburg; Claes Zettermarck of White & Case in Stockholm and William Spiegelberger of White & Case in Moscow
Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris; Werner Melis of Baier Lambert in Vienna
Celtel Nigeria BV (Netherlands) v. Broad Communications Limited (Nigeria), Mr. Oba Otudeko (Nigeria), Miss Foluke Otudeko (Nigeria), and Mr. Ayo Adeboye (Nigeria)
LCIA, London
Stakes: $1.5 billion
A struggle over consolidation in the Nigerian telecom sector. Respondents, who were minority shareholders in the Nigerian cell phone firm Vee Networks Limited, seek to at least partially unwind Celtel's purported 2003 purchase of Vee Networks for $1.5 billion. Respondents maintain in Nigerian court that Celtel wrongfully interfered in Vee's planned sale to another firm, Econet Wireless Limited, and that Econet was entitled to a right of first refusal. Celtel insists that, under the shareholders agreement, the dispute must be arbitrated. Procedural hearings were held in early 2007.
Claimants' Counsel: Ian Glick, QC, of One Essex Court in London; Greg Reid of Linklaters in London
Respondents' Counsel: Ken MacLean, QC, of One Essex Court in London; David Stewart of Olswang in London; David Chivers, QC, of Erskine Chambers in London; Rachel Couter of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in London
Arbitrators: Nicholas Strauss, QC, of One Essex Court in London (Chair); Catherine Otton-Goulder, QC, of Brick Court in London; Michael Lee of 20 Essex Street in London
Elf Aquitaine S.A. (France) and Odival S.A. (France) v. Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A. (Spain) and Riyal, S.L. (Spain)
NAI, La Haya
Stakes: $1.5 billion
A high-stakes spat over control of the Spanish oil company Compañía Española De Petróleos, S.A. (CEPSA). Contending that a July 2003 Spanish law voided CEPSA's shareholder agreements, Banco Santander acquired a ¿1 billion stake (12.6 percent of CEPSA) through a tender offer. Elf Aquitaine (now part of Total S.A.) contested applicability of the new law and argued that Santander had acted in bad faith. In a partial award of March 2006, the arbitrators largely ruled in Total's favor, finding that the winding-up provisions of the shareholders agreement remained valid and agreeing that Santander had acted unilaterally. An August 2006 settlement allowed Total to increase its stake in CEPSA to 49.6 percent without launching a public bid.
Claimants' Counsel: Elie Kleiman and Vicente Sierra of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, Brian King of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Madrid, and Alexandra Schluep of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Amsterdam; J.A. Cremades of J. A. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid
Respondents' Counsel: Jesús Remón Peñalver, Salvador Sánchez-Terán, M. Virgos, and Cándido Paz-Ares of Uría & Menéndez in Madrid; Juan Fernandez Armesto of Armesto & Asociados in Madrid; Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris
Arbitrators: Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez of Serra & Associates Int. in Mexico City (chair); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Horacio Grigera Naon of Washington, D.C.
Polski Koncern Naltowy Orlen, S.A. (Poland) v. Petroval, S.A. (Switzerland)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London
Stakes: $1.5 billion
In separate claims, Poland's PKN accused Yukos Oil Co. and its trading arm, Petroval, of breach of contract when Petroval stopped supplying oil from their Lithuanian refinery. Both claims settled in January 2006 when Yukos International UK B.V. sold its controlling stake in the refinery to PKN for $1.5 billion.
Claimants' Counsel: Andrei Yakovlev of Dewey Ballantine in Warsaw
Respondents' Counsel: C. Mark Baker, Kevin O'Gorman, and Jonathan Sutcliffe of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston
Arbitrators: Peter Leaver, QC, of One Essex Court in London; Hans Smit of New York; Klaus Peter Berger of Germany
Conproca, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) v. Petroleos Mexicanos (Mexico)
ICC, Mexico City
Stakes: $1.4 billion
Conproca, a joint venture between Germany's Siemens AG and Korea's SK Engineering and Construction, claims that Pemex, Mexico's state-owned oil company, changed orders, delayed, and disrupted the upgrade of an oil refinery in Cadereyta, Mexico. Pemex has made counterclaims for defective work, among others. The case has been bifurcated into liability and damages phases. Awaiting award on liability.
Claimants' Counsel: Aloke Ray of White & Case in London; Fernando del Castillo Elorza of Santamarina y Steta in Mexico City
Respondents' Counsel: Luis Enrique Graham, Oliver J. Armas and Salvador Fonseca, Chadbourne & Parke LLP.
Arbitrators: Juan Pablo Cardenas Mejia of CyV Abogados, Ltda. in Bogota (chair); Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid; Alejandro Ogarrio Ramirez Espana of Ogarrio Daguerre in Mexico City
Latin American Infrastructure Fund X SPRL (Belgium) v. Axtel S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), Telinor Telefonia, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico), Blackstone Capital Partners III Merchant Banking Fund, L.P. (U.S.), Blackstone Offshore Capital Partners III, L.P. (U.S.), and Blackstone Family Investment Partnership III, L.P. (U.S.)
AAA, New York
Stakes: Control of a $1.37 billion company
A fight over control of Axtel, a Mexican telecommunications company with a 2007 market capitalization of about $1.37 billion. The claimant, a special purpose investment vehicle affiliated with American International Group, sought a majority of the shares reserved for foreign owners. The arbitration settled in 2006 without the claimant getting the relief that it demanded.
Claimants' Counsel: Robert Greig and Carine Dupeyron of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York
Respondents' Counsel: Marco Schnabl and Dana Freyer of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York; Michael Kim of Kobre & Kim in New York; Robert Bodian and David Barres of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo in New York
Arbitrators: John Townsend of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in Washington, D.C. (chair); Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez of Serra & Associates Int. in Mexico City; Ernesto Canales Santos of Canales y Socios Abogados
Bridas S.A.P.I.C (Argentina), Bridas Energy International Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), Intercontinental Oil & Gas Ventures Ltd. (B.V.I.), and Bridas Corporation (B.V.I.) v. State Concern Turkmenneft (Turkmenistan), Concern Balkannebitgazsenagat (Turkmenistan), and the Government of Turkmenistan
ICC, Houston
Stakes: $1.23 billion
The Argentine oil company Bridas formed two ill-fated joint ventures in Turkmenistan in the early 1990s. Disputes arose, the Turkmen parties ceased exports, and Bridas brought arbitrations in Houston and Stockholm. In 1999 and 2000, the Houston panel found that Bridas' contract breaches did not justify termination, and awarded Bridas $580 million against Turkmenistan and its state oil company, Turkmenneft. In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit validated the award against Turkmenneft. In 2006, after another round of litigation, the Fifth Circuit validated the award against Turkmenistan, finding it to be the alter ego of Turkmenneft. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in November 2006. Although the Stockholm panel rejected Bridas' claim for $2 billion in lost profits, it awarded Bridas an unchallenged $195 million based on the second joint venture. Counting interest, Turkmenistan's bill now exceeds $1 billion.
Claimants' Counsel: Mary O'Connor, Rex Heinke, and Rachel Helyar of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Dallas and Los Angeles; Sergio Le Pera of Le Pera & Lessa in Buenos Aires; Murray Fogler of McDade Fogler in Houston; George Bermann of Columbia University School of Law in New York
Respondents' Counsel: William Knull, III of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in Houston
Arbitrators: Edward Chiasson, QC (Chair); Griffin Bell; Hans Smit of New York
UEG Araucaria LTDA (Brazil) v. Companhia Paranaense De Energia (Brazil) and Copel Geracao S.A. (Brazil)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $1.16 billion
UEGA, a project company owned by El Paso Corp., Petrobras, and the Brazilian utility COPEL, was awarded a contract to build and operate a gas-fired power plant by COPEL. Following alleged interference by the Brazilian state of Paraná, COPEL ceased payments, prompting UEGA to terminate the contract. Settlement of all disputes in 2006, following a full hearing on the merits, provided for the purchase by COPEL of El Paso's interests for $190 million, plus $150 million in payments from COPEL to Petrobras.
Claimants' Counsel: C. Mark Baker, Arif Ali, and Baiju Vasani of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston; Joao Afonso, Marcio Cordeiro, and Sergio Laclau of Xavier, Bernardes, Bragança, Sociedade De Advogados in Brazil
Respondents' Counsel: Gilberto Giusti of Pinheiro Neto Advogados in Curitiba, Brazil
Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne (chair); J. Martin Hunter of Essex Court Chambers in London; Jorge Fontoura Nogueira of Brasilia
Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Korea) v. The Hanwha Group (Korea), Macquarie Life Limited (Australia), and Orix Corporation (Japan)
ICC, New York
Stakes: $1.16 billion (including $276 million counterclaim by Hanwha)
A fight for control of Korea Life Insurance Corp., arising out of the consortium's 2002 purchase of 51 percent in Korea Life from KDIC. Hanwha asserts that it has an option to purchase a further 16 percent, which KDIC disputes. KDIC says the agreement was invalid due to faulty disclosure and an alleged bribery attempt of Korean officials by Hanwha. KDIC and the consortium have filed a pair of arbitrations against each other, which are set to be consolidated. The parties believe it to be the largest dispute in East Asia.
Claimants' Counsel: Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York; Kap-You (Kevin) Kim of Bae, Kim & Lee in Seoul
Respondents' Counsel: Barry Ostrager of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York; B.C Yoon, Benjamin Hughes, and E.Y. Park of Kim & Chang in Seoul; Henry Weisburg of Shearman & Sterling in New York and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore
Arbitrators: Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal (chair); W. Michael Reisman of Yale University; Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif.
IPOC International Growth Fund Limited (Bermuda) v. LV Finance Group Limited (B.V.I.)
Ad hoc, Zurich
Stakes: $1.13 billion
Another case stemming from the dispute between LV and IPOC over a 25 percent stake in Russian mobile phone operator MegaFon. In this Zurich arbitration, the parties fought over a bundle of shares representing about three-fourths of the one-quarter stake. In October 2004, the panel ruled that IPOC had not validly exercised its purchase option. In May 2006 the tribunal issued a second award in favor of LV, ruling that the option agreement was unenforceable due to illegality and money laundering. The Swiss Supreme Court upheld this award in February 2007 ("Mud Bath," The American Lawyer, June 2007).
Claimants' Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer, Ricardo Ugarte, and Franz Stirnimann of Winston & Strawn in Geneva
Respondents' Counsel:
Balz Gross and Mariella Orelli of of Homburger in Zurich; Michael Jones of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in London (withdrew); Justin Michaelson of S.J. Berwin in London
Arbitrators: Daniel Wehrli of Gloor & Sieger in Zurich (chair); Ian Meakin of Byrne-Sutton Bonnard in Geneva; Boris Kojevnikov of Vienna
Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. (Japan) v. Fortress Re, Inc. (U.S.)
Ad hoc, New York
Stakes: $1.12 billion
Fortress Re reinsured much of the world's aviation insurance from 1996 through 2001. Using a technique known as "finite reinsurance," Fortress Re improved its balance sheet without transferring risk; it then found itself unable to cover $3 billion in losses claimed by Japanese insurers, including Sompo. In December 2003, Sompo won an arbitration judgment of about $1.12 billion against Fortress Re -- including $100 million in attorney fees and punitive damages for willful misconduct. In March 2004, the award was confirmed by a federal district court judge in Greensboro, N.C. In July 2004, Sompo forced Fortress' principals to disgorge more than $400 million in assets. In January 2005, Japanese insurers reached a confidential settlement with Greensboro's American Hebrew Academy, to which Sabah had donated money. Finally, Fortress Re's auditor, Deloitte & Touche, reportedly agreed in September 2005 to settle a lawsuit brought by Sompo in North Carolina state court with a payment of approximately $250 million to the Japanese insurers.
Claimants' Counsel: Cliff Schoenberg, Howard Hawkins, John Finnegan, and Philip Loree of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York
Respondents' Counsel: Jack Gordon of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Paul Dassenko of Converium Reinsurance Inc. in New York (chair); Caleb Fowler of Westover; Andrew Maneval of Horizon Management Group in Boston
Electricité de France (France) v. Carlo Tassara Finanziaria SpA (Italy)
Geneva Chamber of Commerce, Geneva
Stakes: $1.05 billion
France's EDF entered into a series of put and call option agreements with shareholders of Italy's Edison S.p.A., including Carlo Tassara. EDF tried to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy passed legislation to frustrate its plans. An agreement was reached between the French and Italian governments in December 2005, and EDF was able to pursue its expansion in Europe by taking over Edison through Italenergia.
Claimants' Counsel: Philippe Pinsolle and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Franco Bonelli of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan
Arbitrators: Charles Poncet of Ziegler Poncet Grumbach Carrard Luscher in Geneva; Piero Bernardini of Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome
Atlantic LNG Company of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG, S.A. (Spain)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), New York
Stakes: $1 billion
The Trinidad investment vehicle of energy firms including BP plc and BG Group, Atlantic LNG contends that liquefied natural gas intended for sale in Spain has been diverted from Trinidad to the U.S. East Coast in pursuit of higher prices. Gas Natural contends that its contract allows such destination flexibility. Atlantic wants to reopen and modify the pricing formula. This claim involves the first train of LNG to be developed in Trinidad. The first hearing was held in April 2007. Claims arising out of later Spanish gas deals with Trinidad have been brought by the Atlantic LNG 2/3 Company against Repsol and against Naturcorp.
Claimants' Counsel: Michael Hirschfeld of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York
Respondents' Counsel: George von Mehren of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland
Arbitrators: Gerald Aksen of Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner in New York (chair); Ben Sheppard, Jr., of Houston; Eugene Massey of Washington, D.C.
Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG, S.A. (Spain), and Gas Natural SDG, S.A. (Spain) v. Nigeria LNG Ltd. Gas (Nigeria) and Nigeria LNG Ltd. (Nigeria)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London
Stakes: $1 billion (including counterclaim of over $500 million)
Both Gas Natural and Nigeria LNG sought a change in the formula used to set the price for liquefied natural gas imported to Spain. The panel found that the price paid by Spanish consumers of natural gas has decreased significantly because of competition mandated by E.U. regulation, and it adopted Gas Natural's formula. The award resulted in more than $500 million in price reductions. Adoption of Nigeria LNG's formula would have resulted in more than $500 million of price increases.
Claimants' Counsel: George von Mehren of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland and Javier Santos of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Madrid
Respondents' Counsel: Paul Mitchard of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London; Edith Unuigbe of Nigeria LNG in Lagos
Arbitrators: William Park of Boston University Law School (chair); Paul Saba of KPR Associates in Boston; Ian Glick of One Essex Court in London
Globe Nuclear Services and Supply GNSS, Limited (U.S.) v. AO Techsnabexport (Russia)
SCC, Stockholm
Stakes: $1 billion
Globe Nuclear seeks to enforce a contract to buy depleted uranium from the respondent, Tenex. Tenex says the contract is overridden by a 1993 U.S.-Russia treaty under which Russia delegated to Tenex the task of transforming nuclear warheads into civil energy. Liability and damages hearings have been completed. The panel is considering whether to suspend the proceedings on the basis of ongoing criminal prosecutions, in both the United States and Russia, involving former Russian atomic Minister Yevegeny Adamov.
Claimants' Counsel: Andrew Fletcher of Pepper Hamilton in Pittsburgh; Kaj Hober of Mannheimer Swartling in Stockholm
Respondents' Counsel: Ivan Marisin, Timur Aitkulov, Peter Rosher, and Sandrine Colletier of Clifford Chance in Paris and Moscow
Arbitrators: Gustaf Moller of Helsinki (president); S.N. Lebedev of Moscow; Karl-Erik Danielsson of Gernandt & Danielsson in Stockholm
Telecom Italia International N.V. (Netherlands) v. Techold Participacoes S.A. (Brazil)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $1 billion
The main front in the five-arbitration war for control of Brasil Telecom, arising out of a series of April 2005 agreements between Telecom Italia and the financial holding company Techold, including a purported agreement for the sale of Brasil Telecom's mobile phone business. Telecom Italia complains that it has been deprived of control rights in Brasil Telecom. Techold wants the agreements held invalid because they were signed by allegedly conflicted corporate officers without shareholder approval. Hearings are under way.
Claimants' Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Nigel Blackaby, and Alex Wilbraham of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Patricia Garcia of Lazzareschi Advogados in Brazil; Luiz Aboim of Mundie e Advogados in Brazil
Respondents' Counsel: Howard Zelbo, Carmine Boccuzzi, and Aren Goldsmith of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York and Paris
Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver (chair); Neill Kaplan, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Wolfgang Peter of Python & Peter in Geneva
ChevronTexaco Corp. (U.S.) v. Petroecuador and the Republic of Ecuador
AAA, New York
Stakes: $1 billion
A famous Amazon case lost in a thicket of procedure. Chevron seeks an arbitral declaration that Ecuador and Petroecuador must cover the costs of a suit brought by tribespeople against the U.S. oil company for ecological damage to the Amazon Basin. The environmental action is still being tried in a Lago Agrio court after being thrown out of U.S. courts for forum non conveniens. Ecuador has asked a U.S. district judge in New York to declare that the arbitrators lack jurisdiction on the question of cost reimbursement. In spring 2007 the parties still awaited the U.S. court's ruling on arbitral jurisdiction.
Claimants' Counsel: Thomas Cullen of Jones Day in Washington, D.C.; Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston
Respondents' Counsel: Terry Collingsworth of the International Labor Rights Fund in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; John Fellas of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in New York; William Baker of Ropes & Gray in Boston
PetroKazakhstan Inc. (Canada) v. Lukoil Overseas Kumkol B.V. (Netherlands)
SCC, Stockholm
Stakes: $1 billion (including $500 million counterclaim)
Numerous claims and counterclaims concerning the financing, operations, and management of a joint venture operation of an oil field in Kazakhstan. A partial award in October 2006 rejected the claims on the merits and rejected most of the counterclaims on jurisdictional grounds. One counterclaim concerning pre-emption rights was decided in favor of Lukoil. Damages remain to be decided. There are two related cases, one another SCC case and the other an ICC case, which together represent a further $150 million in dispute.
Claimants' Counsel: Sarah François-Poncet and Brenda Horrigan of Salans in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Jonas Benedictsson and Stefan Bessman of Baker & McKenzie in Stockholm and Vladimir Khvalei of Baker & McKenzie in Moscow
Arbitrators: Christer Soderlund of Vinge in Stockholm (president); Serge Lazareff of Paris; Ivan Zykin of Moscow
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Brazil) v. El Paso Rio Claro Ltda (Brazil) and El Paso Energy CAYGER II Company (Brazil)
Ad hoc (UNCITRAL; administered by the ICDR), New York
Stakes: $1 billion
Under a joint venture agreement with El Paso, Petroleo Brasiliero (Petrobras) was obliged to give monetary support payments for the construction and operation of a power generation facility. Petrobras argued that the payments became so onerous, following the Brazilian electricity rationing program of 2001, as to justify termination of the contract and restitution of the payments. El Paso counterclaimed for unpaid support obligation payments. Following a partial final award in early 2006, El Paso signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the proceedings and sell its investment to Petrobras for approximately $358 million.
Claimants' Counsel: Sterling Leech of Clyde & Co in London; Michael Black, QC, of 2 Temple Gardens in London
Respondents' Counsel: James Loftis, Alden Atkins, Eugene Silva II, Adrianne Goins, and Mark Beeley of Vinson & Elkins in London
Arbitrators: Filip De Ly of Erasmus University in Rotterdam (chair); Luiz Olavo Baptista of Sao Paulo; Michael Lee of 20 Essex Street in London
The BOC Group plc (U.K.) and BOC Gases (Nanjing) Chemical Park Co. Ltd. (China) v. Celanese AG (Germany), Celanese Corporation (U.S.), and Celanese (Nanjing) Chemical Co. Ltd. (China)
ICC, Singapore
Stakes: $960 million
A dispute between the Chinese subsidiaries of two European companies. The BOC parties allege breaches of contract and of the implied covenant of good faith. They also seek a declaration of non-liability for allegations made by Celanese in U.S. litigation. The parties agreed to stay the arbitration after the tribunal is empanelled, pending resolution of parallel U.S. litigation.
Claimants' Counsel: Stephen Marzen of Shearman & Sterling in Washington, D.C.
Respondents' Counsel: William Quinn, Jr., of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia
Arbitrators: W. Michael Reisman of Yale University; Paul Dodyk of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York
Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Turkey) v. Motorola Credit Corporation Inc. (U.S.)
ICC, Zurich
Stakes: $950 million
Dispute as to operational issues arising from Turkey's second largest mobile operator. Before this claim could proceed to judgment, Turkey seized Telsim and, after auctioning the company to Vodafone plc, settled Motorola's claims with a payment of $900 million in May 2006.
Claimants' Counsel: David Rosenblatt and Gabrielle Nater-Bass of Homburger in Zurich
Respondents' Counsel: Steven Davidson of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C., and Tom Sprange of Steptoe & Johnson in London
Arbitrators: Christof Liebscher of Wolff Theiss in Vienna (chair); Robert Dallafior of Heiss Dallafior in Zurich; Toby Landau of Essex Court Chambers in London
The Navy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) v. Thales S.A. (formerly Thomson-CSF) (France)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $882 million
Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas stated in a March 2003 interview with the Paris newspaper Le Figaro that, to secure the sale of six frigates to Taiwan for nearly $3 billion, Thales secretly paid a half-billion-dollar kickback to a middleman. While French criminal investigations continue, Taiwan is suing for recovery of that $500 million, plus $100 million for damage to its reputation. Thales denies all wrongdoing. The arbitral panel asserted jurisdiction in September 2004. Final hearings were scheduled for spring 2007.
Claimants' Counsel: Philip Dunham and Xavier Nyssen of Dechert in Paris; T.C Huang of Huang & Partners in Taipei
Respondents' Counsel:
Emmanuel Gaillard, Philippe Pinsolle, and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Arbitrators: Andrea Giardina of Chiomenti Studio Legale in Rome (chair); Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Laurent Levy of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva
Rhodia SA (France) v. Sanofi-Aventis S.A. (France)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $850 million
Rhodia, created in 1997--1998 through the spin-off of Rhone-Poulenc's chemical business, alleged that Sanofi-Aventis, as Rhone-Poulenc's successor, had a duty to indemnify Rhodia for the unfunded pension obligations and environmental liabilities that Rhodia inherited. In September 2006, the tribunal dismissed both claims, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate Rhodia's pension claim and that Rhodia's environmental claim was barred because a 2003 settlement agreement, which released the parties' obligations, was valid and enforceable. Rhodia is challenging the ruling in the French courts.
Claimants' Counsel: Elie Kleiman of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Jean-Yves Garaud and Frederic Baillet of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris
Arbitrators: Andre Decocq of Paris (chair); Michel Armand-Prevost of Paris; Laurent Aynes of Paris
Russian Federation v. Compagnie Noga d'Importation et d'Exportation (Switzerland)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $800 million
A follow-on dispute arising out of a large loan extended to Russia in the early 1990s by Noga, a Swiss trading company. Still seeking to collect on a 2001 arbitration award, Noga claims that Russia agreed in July 2002 to pay it $800 million as a settlement. Russia maintains that the settlement is null and void because the attorney who signed it lacked the authority to act on Russia's behalf. An award was expected in mid-2007.
Claimants' Counsel: Jean-Yves Garaud of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Antoine Korkmaz of Robin et Korkmaz in Paris
Arbitrators: François Perret of Switzerland (chair); Olivier Echappe of Paris; Nicholas Decker of Luxembourg
XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd v. Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company (Switzerland)
Ad hoc
Stakes: $800 million
When XL bought various insurance operations from Winterthur, the parties agreed to revalue the reserves in three years' time and to adjust the purchase price accordingly. The parties agreed to settle any dispute through a "baseball arbitration," so-called because the method was used to set baseball player salaries in the 1980s. Under these rules, XL and Winterthur both submitted valuations to the arbitrator and agreed to be bound by the price closer to the valuation given by an actuary. In December 2005, the arbitrator set the price at the level suggested by respondent/seller Winterthur, which was $800 million higher than the price suggested by XL.
Claimants' Counsel: Nicholas Munday of Clifford Chance in London
Respondents' Counsel: Chris Foster of Herbert Smith in London
Arbitrators: David Slater of Watson Wyatt in London
Government of the Province of East Kalimantan (Indonesia) v. PT Kaltim Prima Coal (Indonesia), Sangatta Holding Ltd., and Kalimantan Coal Ltd.
ICSID, Washington, D.C.
Stakes: $722 million
The Indonesian province of East Kalimantan claims that it is a third party beneficiary to a contract signed by the respondents and that it has the right to acquire a 31 percent stake in the respondents' coal project. The province asserts lost profits of $469 million to $722 million. Believed to be the first ICSID case brought by a sovereign state or province.
Claimants' Counsel: P.D. Dermawan of Jakarta
Respondents' Counsel: Michael Lennon and Peter Griffin of Baker Botts in London; Matthew Weiniger of Herbert Smith in London
Arbitrators: Michael Hwang of Singapore; Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels
Grupo Alvica Sociedad en Comandita Simple (Venezuela) v. Petrolera Ameriven S.A. (Venezuela)
ICC, New York
Stakes: $709 million
A series of claims brought by Grupo Alvica, a joint venture of Fluor Corp. and Inelectra S.A. Alvica signed a contract with Petrolera Ameriven S.A., a consortium including Petroleos de Venezuela, Chevron Texaco, and ConocoPhillips, to build an upgrader, a plant designed to upgrade heavy crude oil so that it is suitable for refining. In February 2004, in a dispute over soil conditions, claimant won a partial award of $36 million. In August 2005, the parties reached a global settlement resolving all segments of the arbitration for approximately $30.5 million.
Claimants' Counsel: Louis Pepe of Pepe & Hazard in Hartford, Connecticut
Respondents' Counsel: Michael Cordera of Shearman & Sterling in New York and Christopher Ryan of Shearman & Sterling in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver (chair); Michael Schneider of Lalive in Geneva; Horacio Grigera Naon of Washington, D.C.
ABN Amro Bank N.V. (Sweden) v. Telsim Mobil Telekomunikaysion Hizmetleri A.S. (Turkey)
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $700 million
Another claim against the Turkish mobile operator Telsim, formerly owned by Turkey's controversial Uzan clan. In this case, the Finnish giant Nokia demanded repayment of $707 million in vendor financing that it had extended to Telsim, with ABN as the lender of record. The panel in 2004 awarded a full $707 million plus interest to ABN, which was the claimant of record, although Nokia was the real party in interest. Turkey seized Telsim, and after auctioning the company to Vodafone, it paid Nokia $341 million in May 2006. At the same time, Turkey settled a parallel claim of nearly $2 billion by Motorola Credit Corp. for $900 million. Meanwhile, entities suspected of having Uzan connections are suing Turkey for billions for the seizure of the Uzans' electric utilities.
Claimants' Counsel: Peter Schaufelberger of SvH Schaufelberger & van Hoboken in Zurich-Zollikon; Rudolf Tschani of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich
Respondents' Counsel: Thomas Muller, Gabrielle Nater-Bass, and David Rosenthal of Homburger in Zurich
Arbitrators: Gaudenz Domenig of Prager Dreifuss in Zurich; Beat von Rechenberg of CMS von Erlach Klainguti Stettler Wille in Zurich; Georg von Segesser of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva
Chemical Overseas Holdings, Inc. (U.S.), Credit Suisse First Boston (Switzerland), and Dresdner Bank Latinamerika (Germany) v. Republic of Uruguay
ICC, New York
Stakes: $700 million
A dispute arising from the collapse of the Uruguayan banking industry in 2002. The three Western banks allege that Uruguay breached a release, a covenant not to sue, and an arbitration clause in an agreement among the parties. Uruguay counterclaims for approximately $700 million in damages. Evidentiary hearings were held in winter 2007.
Claimants' Counsel: Louis Kimmelman and Dana MacGrath of Allen & Overy in New York; Henry Weisburg of Shearman & Sterling in New York
Respondents' Counsel: Dane Butswinkis of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Julian Lew of London (Chair); Gerald Aksen of New York; Horacio Grigera Naon of Washington, D.C.
Lamane Trading Corporation (B.V.I.) v. Finecroft Ltd. (Cyprus) and Winfair Ltd. (Cyprus)
LCIA, London
Stakes: $700 million
A shareholder dispute to gain control of VSMPO-Avisma Corp. (Russia), one of the world's largest titanium producers and manufacturers. The claimant sought specific performance and injunctive relief for the return of its interest in VSMPO-Avisma, and it commenced concurrent proceedings in New York, Russia, and Cyprus that were restrained by an antisuit injunction obtained by the respondents in the British Virgin Islands. The case settled confidentially in September 2006, around the time that control of VSMPO-Avisma was acquired by the Russian state-owned arms exporter Rosboronexport.
Claimants' Counsel: Delphine Nougayrede, Norair Babadjanian, and Mads Loewe of DLA Piper in London
Respondents' Counsel: Paul Mitchard, Patrick Heneghan, Henry Quinlan, and Claudia Ludwig of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London; Matthew Rea and Laura Conway of Dawsons in London
Arbitrators: David Williams, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (chair); Per Runeland of SJ Berwin in London; Martin Nourse of London
Moravel Investment Ltd. (Cyprus) v. OAO Yuganskneftegas (Russia)
LCIA, London
Stakes: $650 million
In 2004, the majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Co., acting through Moravel, lent Yukos $1.6 billion in preparation for a merger with OAO Sibneft that never occurred. Moravel seeks payment of the unpaid balance by the alleged guarantor, Yuganskneftegas (today owned by OAO Rosneft Oil Co.). In April 2007, the tribunal found that the guarantee was unenforceable and dismissed all claims.
Claimants' Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents' Counsel: Michael Goldberg and Jay Alexander of Baker Botts in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Christopher Thomas, QC, of Thomas & Partners in Vancouver (chair); Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London; Gary Born of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in London
