X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
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’s 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 Company 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 & Associ�s 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 & Associ�s; 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 Corporation (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 number-two 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 Company, stopped supplying oil from Yukos’s 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 (Chair); 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 Fran�ois-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 & Associ�s 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 Electricit� 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 & Associ�s 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 Compa��a Espa�ola De Petr�leos, 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: Jes�s Rem�n Pe�alver, Salvador S�nchez-Ter�n, M. Virgos, and C�ndido Paz-Ares of Ur�a & Men�ndez in Madrid; Juan Fernandez Armesto of Armesto & Asociados in Madrid; Yves Derains of Derains & Associ�s in Paris Arbitrators: Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez of Serra & Associates International 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 Company 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. 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, Salvador Fonseca, Carlos Mart�nez, Eduardo Camelo, Jorge Romo, In�s Vargas, and Juan Carlos Zamora of Thacher Proffitt & Wood in Mexico City 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 International 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’s 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’s 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 Corporation, 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 Paran�, 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, Bragan�a, 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 Corporation, 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, California 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 attorneys’ fees and punitive damages for willful misconduct. In March 2004 the award was confirmed by a federal district court judge in Greensboro, North Carolina. In July 2004 Sompo forced Fortress’s 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 Electricit� 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 U.S. 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 Fran�ois-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: Fran�ois 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 Limited, and Kalimantan Coal Limited 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�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 Corporation 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 Corporation 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 Corporation (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 anti-suit 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 Limited (Cyprus) v. OAO Yuganskneftegas (Russia) LCIA, London Stakes: $650 million In 2004, the majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Company, 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 Company). 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 Moravel Investment Limited (Cyprus) v. Yukos Oil Company (Russia) LCIA, London Stakes: $650 million In 2004, the majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Company, acting through Moravel, lent Yukos $1.6 billion in preparation for a merger with OAO Sibneft that never occurred. In this arbitration, Moravel sought payment of the unpaid balance by the borrower, Yukos. The panel awarded Moravel $650 million plus interest in September 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Neoclis Neocleous and Michael Fenn of Reid Minty in London Arbitrators: J. William Rowley, QC, of McMillan Binch in Toronto (Chair); Peter Leaver, QC, of One Essex Court in London; Jonathan Hirst, QC, of Brick Court Chambers in London SONATRACH (Algeria) and Sonatrading Amsterdam BV (Netherlands) v. Duke Energy LNG Sales, Inc. (U.S.) Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London Stakes: $625 million In 1987, Duke signed a 20-year contract to purchase liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Sonatrach, the Algerian state energy company. Sonatrach sought damages for lost sales opportunities after the price of LNG soared. Duke alleged in its counterclaim that Sonatrach failed to meet its shipping obligations. In November 2006, the panel broadly rejected Sonatrach’s damages claim and awarded Duke a near-total recovery of about $23 million plus interest on its counterclaim. The award calls for further proceedings on a handful of open issues. Claimants’ Counsel: David Reed of Shearman & Sterling in London and Todd Wetmore and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Steven Smith of O’Melveny & Myers in San Francisco Arbitrators: Alan Redfern of One Essex Court in London (Chair); Lord Dervaird of Edinburgh, Scotland; Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London Karahas Bodas Company (Cayman Islands) v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”) (Indonesia), PT PLN (Indonesia), and Republic of Indonesia Ad hoc, Geneva Stakes: $600 million In 1997 Indonesia terminated a geothermal power contract signed by Karaha Bodas with respondents Pertamina and PLN. The arbitral panel awarded Karaha Bodas $261 million in December 2000. After years of worldwide litigation, Karaha Bodas collected approximately $320 million (including interest) and distributed it to shareholders in February 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C.; William Isaacson of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington, D.C.; Michael Pilkington of Clyde & Co in Hong Kong and Andrew Bicknell of Clyde & Co in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: David Kendall of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.; Carolyn Lamm of White & Case in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associ�s in Paris (Chair); Piero Bernardini of Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Ahmed El-Kosheri of Kosheri, Rashed & Riad in Cairo Newmont (Uzbekistan) Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Republic of Uzbekistan, State Committee on Geology and Mineral Resources (Uzbekistan), and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Combinat (Uzbekistan) Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm Stakes: $600 million Newmont alleges that the Uzbek respondents violated the terms of their joint venture agreement with Newmont when Uzbek tax authorities imposed taxes on income from a gold mine. The contract arbitration was filed in November 2006. A parallel BIT claim has also been filed. Claimants’ Counsel: O. Thomas Johnson, Jr., of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: David W. Rivkin and Barton Legum of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York and Paris Arbitrators: Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; John Beechey of Clifford Chance in London; Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (“PIATCO”) (Philippines) v. Republic of the Philippines ICC, Singapore Stakes: $565 million A consortium including Germany’s Fraport AG built a new terminal at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Following construction, PIATCO alleges, the Philippines nullified the contracts and seized the terminal. The Philippines defends the actions of its officials and accuses the consortium of corruption. The oral hearing is scheduled for November 2007. An award is expected sooner in the parallel BIT arbitration filed by Fraport. Claimants’ Counsel: Eduardo de los Angeles and Manuel Cosico of Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & de los Angeles in Manila; Michael Kuah, Mervyn Foo, and Adeline Foo of Lee & Lee in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm, Abby Cohen Smutny, and Stephen Bond of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Florentino Feliciano of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (retired) in Manila Arbitrators: Michael Pryles of Clayton Utz in Melbourne (Chair); Florenz Regalado of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; Bernardo Pardo of the Supreme Court of the Philippines ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (Netherlands), ANZEF Limited (U.K.), BNP Paribas (France), Cr�dit Lyonnais S.A. (France), Credit Suisse First Boston (Switzerland), Erste Bank der Oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG (Austria), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (U.S.), Standard Chartered Bank (U.K.), Bank of America, N.A. (U.S.), Citibank, N.A. (U.S.), and KBC Finance Ireland (Ireland) v. Industrial Development Bank of India, ICICI Limited (India), IFCI Limited (India), and State Bank of India Ad hoc (UNCITRAL) Stakes: $550 million Western banks that financed the Dabhol power project in Mumbai alleged that Indian banks breached the intercreditor agreement. Dabhol was built by Enron with General Electric Company and Bechtel Group Inc., only to be mothballed when the electricity demand fell short of expectations, and a new state administration allegedly failed to honor its obligations. By summer 2005, Mumbai’s power needs had finally caught up to Dabhol’s potential supply, and all Dabhol arbitrations were settled as part of a successful restructuring. According to Indian press reports, Indian lenders paid the Western lenders $230 million. Claimants’ Counsel: Audley Sheppard and Chris Wyman of Clifford Chance in London Respondents’ Counsel: David Warne and Gautam Bhattacharyya of Reed Smith Richards Butler in London; Cyril Shroff and L. Viswanathan of Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co in Mumbai Arbitrators: Lord Browne-Wilkinson of Serle Court in London (Chair); Alan Redfern of One Essex Court in London; S.P. Bharucha of Mumbai Elleray Ltd (B.V.I.) v. Ansol Ltd (Guernsey) Swiss Chambers, Zurich Stakes: $537 million (including $487 million counterclaim) Elleray sought the termination of its aluminum joint venture in Tajikistan with the Tajik-owned Ansol. Ansol contested the divorce and counterclaimed for future profits. In October 2005, Elleray won the right to repayment of a $25 million loan in a separate arbitration, but Ansol demanded that the award be offset by its large counterclaim in this case. Settled confidentially in early 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer of Winston & Strawn in Geneva Respondents’ Counsel: Michele Caratsch of Haymann & Baldi in Zurich Arbitrators: P.M. Patocchi of Lenz & Staehlin in Geneva (Chair); Markus Wirth of Homburger in Zurich; Jacques Werner of Werner & Associates in Geneva Allseas Group SA (Switzerland) v. Sembawang Shipyard Pte Ltd. (Singapore) London Maritime Arbitrators Association, London Stakes: Over $500 million The European marine group Allseas hired the Singapore shipbuilder Sembawang to convert a bulk carrier into a one-of-a-kind ship called The Solitaire, a vessel that can lay underwater pipes at a depth of two kilometers. Unhappy with Sembawang’s work, Allseas gave the job to another shipyard to finish and initiated this arbitration. The panel issued ten interim awards during the decade after the claim was filed in January 1996. Settled in April 2006, before final award on damages, with a payment of $460 million from Sembawang to Allseas. Claimants’ Counsel: Philip Chong of DLA Piper in London Respondents’ Counsel: Simon Curtis and William Cecil of Curtis, Davis & Garrard in London Arbitrators: John Tackaberry of Arbitration Chambers in London (Chair); Kenneth Chapman, naval architect; Bruce Harris of London Maritime Arbitrators Association Jet Airways Ltd. (India) v. Sahara Airlines Ltd. (India) Ad hoc, Mumbai Stakes: Over $500 million Contentious consolidation in India’s domestic airline industry. In January 2006 the two parties struck a sales agreement, but Jet Airways then disputed whether the pre-conditions had been met that would require it to purchase Sahara Airlines. Settled in April 2007 with the purchase of Sahara Airlines by Jet Airways for $338 million, about 40 percent below the original purchase price. Claimants’ Counsel: Stephen Males, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London; Paul Phippen of MacFarlanes in London Respondents’ Counsel: Jeffrey Gruder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Satish Kishanchandani of DSK Legal in Mumbai Arbitrators: Lord Johan Steyn of Essex Court Chambers in London; S. P. Bharucha of Mumbai; Jeevan Reddy of India Atmel Corp. (U.S.) v. LM Ericsson Telfon, AB (Sweden) AAA, New York Stakes: $500 million The chip manufacturer Atmel alleged that Ericsson misappropriated its patents and breached the parties’ license agreement for an embedded cell phone microprocessor design. In November 2005, the panel awarded Atmel $43 million. Claimants’ Counsel: R.M. Thompson of Farella Braun + Martel in San Francisco Respondents’ Counsel: James Bennett of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco Arbitrators: David Kay of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Chicago (President); Thomas Brewer of Seattle; David Ostfeld of Adams & Reese in Houston Oriental Oil Corp. (Dubai) v. Grup Servise Petrolere (Romania) ICC, Paris Stakes: $500 million The Dubai claimant terminated a contract to lease three Persian Gulf oil rigs to the Romanian respondent�for poor performance, according to claimant; for economic convenience, according to respondent. An Iranian gunship reportedly opened fire on one of the rigs in August 2006, allegedly at the behest of Oriental Oil. Petro Iran Development Co., a unit of the National Iranian Oil Company, has stated that the rig was lawfully seized pursuant to an attachment order obtained by Oriental Oil, without the use of any military force. Claimants’ Counsel: Moshkan Mashkour of Teheran Respondents’ Counsel: Gildas Rostain of Clyde & Co in Paris Arbitrators: Laurent Levy of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Hamid Gharavi of Salans in Paris SRI International Business Insurance Co., Steadfast Insurance Co., American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Gerling-Konzern, North Rock Ins. Co. Federal Insurance Co., and XL Insurance Switzerland v. Merck & Co., Inc. (U.S.) Ad hoc, London Stakes: $500 million Dispute over insurance for Vioxx litigation losses. Merck believes that its “upper level excess” policies give it excess protection (beyond its other insurance policies) against losses in all Vioxx lawsuits; and it seeks substantially more than half a billion dollars in coverage. The claimant insurers, which include affiliates of Swiss Re, Zurich, CNA, and Chubb, seek to void, cancel, or otherwise deny coverage. Claimants’ Counsel: Steven Sletten of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles Respondents’ Counsel: William Skinner and Allan Moore of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C., and London Arbitrators: Unknown World Duty Free Company Limited (Isle of Man) v. Republic of Kenya ICSID, Washington, D.C., and The Hague Stakes: $500 million A corruption landmark. World Duty Free complained that Kenya terminated its contract to modernize two airports. But in a rare twist, World Duty Free admitted at trial that it made a cash payment to Kenya’s ex-president, Daniel Arap Moi, in exchange for a briefcase full of fresh corn ["Cash for Corn," Focus Europe, Summer 2005]. In October 2006, the tribunal dismissed the claim as a matter of public policy, because it found the payment to be a bribe in the procurement of an investment contract. The award is believed to be the first strike-out of an ICSID claim on non-jurisdictional grounds, as well as the first arbitral award finding a payment of a cash bribe to a head of state. Claimants’ Counsel: Geoffrey Robertson, QC, of Doughty Street Chambers in London; Paul Muite, SC, of Nairobi Respondents’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Constantine Partasides, and Mitesh Kotecha of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Arbitrators: Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice (President); Andrew Rogers, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London General Atomics (U.S.) v. The Office of Atoms for Peace, Ministry of Science and Technology (Thailand) Thai Arbitration Institute, Bangkok Stakes: $444 million General Atomics was appointed in 1997 by the Thai nuclear ministry to design and construct a nuclear research facility in Thailand. However, construction never started due to disagreements over the revision of price and contract terms. The contract was finally terminated, and the parties are in dispute about the financial consequences. In an initial skirmish last year, General Atomics obtained an injunction preventing Thailand’s nuclear ministry from claiming payment under performance guarantees. Under Thai Arbitration Institute rules, the parties are attempting to resolve the dispute by mediation before proceeding further with the arbitration. Claimants’ Counsel: Alastair Henderson and Surapol Srangsomwong of Herbert Smith in Bangkok Respondents’ Counsel: Intranee Sumawong of the Office of the Attorney General in Bangkok Arbitrators: To be determined AK Capital (U.S.), NHB Inc. (Korea), and DASCO Inc. (Korea) v. Hanbo Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Korea) and Seok-Hwan Na (Korea) ICC, Hong Kong Stakes: $438 million The Korean steelmaker Hanbo’s 1997 collapse may have helped to trigger the Asian financial crisis; it certainly laid the groundwork for this dispute. Claimants tried and failed to buy a state-of-the-art steel mill from Hanbo under supervision of the Korean Bankruptcy Court. Claimants argued that their financing failed as the result of a conspiracy led by Hanbo. The panel found no evidence of such a conspiracy. In July 2006, it dismissed the case and awarded respondents costs and fees in excess of $5 million. Claimants’ Counsel: John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore; Kevin Kim of Bae, Kim & Lee in Seoul Respondents’ Counsel: David W. Rivkin of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York; Seung Soon Choi of Yoon & Yang in Seoul Arbitrators: Pierre Karrer of Zurich (Chair); Neil Kaplan, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Michael Hwang of Singapore Base Metal Trading SA (Switzerland) v. Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant (Russia) Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm Stakes: $425 million One of a series of arbitrations between Russian oligarch groups for control of the Russian aluminum industry. This claim was settled in July 2005 by a payment reportedly in the vicinity of $75 million from interests of Oleg Deripaska (associated with the respondent, NKAZ) to interests of the brothers Michael and Yuri Zhivilo (associated with the claimant, Base Metal). After resolving outstanding claims, Deripaska’s interests consolidated into the company OJSC Russian Aluminum, which later merged to form United Company RUSAL. The interests of Deripaska are now embroiled in a series of slightly smaller arbitrations over the control of the TadAz aluminum plant in Tajikistan. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Gibson and Tom Sprange of Steptoe & Johnson in London; Michael Ramm-Ericson and Gustaf Reuterskiold of Lindh Stabell Horten in Stockholm Respondents’ Counsel: Bengt Ake Johnsson of White & Case in Stockholm; Paul Hauser of Bryan Cave in London Arbitrators: Karl-Erik Danielsson of Gernandt & Danielsson in Stockholm (Chair); Pierre Karrer of Zurich; Friedrich Graf von Westphalen of Graf von Westphalen Bappert & Modest in Germany FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited (Bermuda) v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (“VSNL”) (India) ICC, The Hague Stakes: $406 million A struggle between India’s dynastic Tata and Ambani families over access to the Indian telecom market. Anil Ambani’s FLAG seeks to connect its Europe-to-Asia submarine cable system with its Indian communications network through VSNL’s “landing station” in Mumbai. The Tata Group’s VSNL does not wish to let it do so. In May 2006 the tribunal ordered VSNL to grant FLAG access to its landing station. VSNL is challenging the ruling on access in the Dutch courts. An arbitral award on damages is expected in 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Stephen York and Shai Wade of Kilpatrick Stockton in London Respondents’ Counsel: Larry Shore of Herbert Smith in London Arbitrators: Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London (President); Lord Slynn of London; Laurie Craig of Paris CNR International (Cote D’Ivoire) S.A.R.L. and Canadian Natural Resources Limited (Canada) v. T.C. Petroleum, Inc. (U.S.) ICC, Paris Stakes: $400 million T.C. Petroleum sued Canadian Natural Resources in U.S. district court, seeking a 25 percent stake in a large West African offshore oil field and more than $300 million in contract damages from Canadian Natural Resources. CNR filed this arbitration as a defense tactic, seeking a declaration that it was under no such obligations. The dispute settled in 2006, as a final hearing on the merits began. Claimants’ Counsel: C. Mark Baker and Carter Crow of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Geoffrey Harrison of Susman Godfrey in Houston Arbitrators: Gary Born of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in London (Chair); J. William Rowley, QC, of McMillan Binch in Toronto; Paolo Michele Patocchi of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC (U.S.) v. Kemira OYJ (Finland) LCIA, London Stakes: $400 million This arbitration involved a post-closing dispute related to Kerr-McGee’s purchase of a chemical manufacturing facility from Kemira in 2000. Kerr-McGee filed suit in U.S. district court in 2003, but Kemira successfully moved to compel arbitration before the LCIA. In May 2005 the arbitral tribunal issued a partial award dismissing Kerr-McGee’s fraud claims. In November 2006 the tribunal issued a final award that gave Kerr-McGee $5.9 million in damages, but awarded Kemira its attorneys’ fees. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Nickles and Steve Rosenbaum of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Daniel King and Brian White of King & Spalding in Atlanta Arbitrators: Arthur Marriott, QC, of Debevoise & Plimpton in London (President); W. Lawrence Craig of Paris; Gustaf Moller of Helsinki PT Medco E&P Brantas (Indonesia) v. PT Lapindo Brantas (Indonesia) AAA, New York Stakes: $400 million A dispute between the Indonesian owners of a gas exploration joint venture over potential responsibility for apocalyptic mud flows in Java. Following an accident at the gas exploration site in May 2006, a “mud volcano” began to spew 165,000 cubic yards of mud each day, according to one estimate. Thousands of villagers have been displaced, and technical experts are debating the best method to stop or channel the eruption. Claimants’ Counsel: Adam Schiffer of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Michael Goldberg and Michael Lennon of Baker Botts in Houston and London Arbitrators: Alvin Zimmerman of Houston (Chair); Gary McGowan of Houston; Eric Andell of Houston Normetro – Agrupamento do Metropolitano do Porto (Portugal) v. Metro do Porto (Portugal) Ad hoc, Oporto, Portugal Stakes: $390 million A dispute over delays in the construction of a light rail system in Oporto, Portugal, by Normetro, a consortium controlled by Sacyr of Spain, Soares da Costa of Portugal, and Impregilo of Italy. In April 2005, the tribunal awarded the Normetro consortium $127 million plus declaratory relief, granting a time extension to complete construction and avoid further fines of up to $121 million. Claimants’ Counsel: Pedro Vieira and Miguel Cardoso of Linklaters in Lisbon Respondents’ Counsel: Flaminio Roza and Corte Real of Antonio Pinto Duarte e Associados Arbitrators: Jose Miguel Judice; Antonio Lobo Xavier; Jorge Sinde Monteiro SARAS SpA Raffinerie Sarde (Italy) v. Enron Dutch Holdings BV (Netherlands) ICC, Geneva Stakes: $390 million A dispute between the parties to a shareholders’ agreement concerning the Sarlux power project in Sardinia, Europe’s second largest combined-cycle gas power plant. Saras contended that it had the right under a call option to purchase Enron Dutch’s 45 percent stake in Sarlux for about $83 million. Enron Dutch disputed that the option had been triggered and placed a much higher value on its stake. In April 2006, the panel ruled that Saras validly exercised its option, ordered Enron Dutch to sell its stake to Saras for about $159 million, and awarded Saras approximately $90 million in dividends. Claimants’ Counsel: Roberto Casati of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Milan and William McGurn III of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Rome; Alberto Nanni and Judith Gill of Allen & Overy in Milan; Luisa Beretta and Jean Pierre Jacquemoud of Jacquemoud & Stanislas in Geneva Respondents’ Counsel: Piero Bernardini, Angelo Anglani, and Fabio Liguori of Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; James Healy and Paul Mitchard of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London Arbitrators: Riccardo Luzzatto of Milan (Chair); Guido Rossi of Milan; Edoardo Ricci of Milan IPOC International Growth Fund Limited (Bermuda) v. LV Finance Group Limited (B.V.I.) ICC, Geneva Stakes: $375 million A dispute over the smaller of two option agreements that purportedly gave IPOC the right to buy Russian mobile phone assets that now form one quarter of OAO Megafon. IPOC alleged breach of the agreements. LV argued that the agreement was invalid because IPOC was a vessel to launder assets stolen from the Russian people by telecommunications minister Leonid Reiman. This Geneva panel ruled in favor of IPOC in August 2004. However, in August 2006, a Swiss Federal Tribunal vacated the award based on new evidence of corruption, and granted LV’s request for a re-trial ["Mud Bath," The American Lawyer, June 2007]. Claimants’ Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer and Thomas Benz of Winston & Strawn in Geneva Respondents’ Counsel: Balz Gross and Mariella Orelli of Homburger in Zurich; Michael Jones of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in London (withdrew); Justin Michaelson of S.J. Berwin in London Arbitrators: Bernard Meyer-Hauser of Meyer Muller Eckert in Zurich (Chair); Alexander Konarov of the Russian Academy of Foreign Trade in Moscow; Christopher Style of Linklaters in London Alucoal Holdings Ltd (Cyprus) v. Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant (Russia) Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm Stakes: $360 million One of a series of arbitrations between Russian oligarch groups for control of the Russian aluminum industry. In June 2004, the Stockholm tribunal held in a final award that it had no jurisdiction. Claimant withdrew its challenge to the award in the Swedish courts in summer 2005. A closely related claim brought by Base Metal Trading S.A. was settled in July 2005 by a payment reportedly in the vicinity of $75 million from interests of Oleg Deripaska (associated with the respondent, NKAZ) to interests of the brothers Michael and Yuri Zhivilo (associated with Base Metal and Alucoal). After resolving outstanding claims, Deripaska’s interests consolidated into the company OJSC Russian Aluminum, which later merged to form United Company RUSAL. Deripaska’s interests are now embroiled in a series of slightly smaller arbitrations over the control of the TadAz aluminum plant in Tajikistan. Claimants’ Counsel: Bengt Johnsson and Olof Ragmark of White & Case in Stockholm Respondents’ Counsel: Christer Soderlund of Vinge in Stockholm Arbitrators: Allan Philip of Philip & Partners in Copenhagen (Chair); Jan Ramberg of Stockholm; David St. John Sutton of 20 Essex Street in London Solgas Energy Ltd (U.S.) v. Federal Government of Nigeria ICC, London Stakes: $333 million This case concerns a contract, terminated in 2004, for the rehabilitation and operation of the politically controversial Ajaokuta steel plant in Nigeria. The American claimant, Solgas, says that the termination was wrongful; Nigeria says that it was consensual and/or for good cause. Hearing on the merits scheduled for September 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: William Gage of Buck, Keenan, Gage, Little & Lindley in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Rhodri Davies, QC, of 1 Essex Court in London; Colin Joseph of Kendall Freeman in London Arbitrators: David Williams of Auckland (President); Rayner Hamilton of White & Case in New York; Cherie Booth, QC, of Matrix Chambers in London BP Exploration (El Djazair) Limited (Bahamas) and ARCO El-Djazair LLC (U.S.) v. SONATRACH (Algeria) Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Geneva Stakes: $327 million One of a pair of Geneva arbitrations fought by BP and Sonatrach under separate contracts, one under Algerian law, 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. A hearing on preliminary issues was held in December 2006. A preliminary award was expected in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Elie Kleiman, and Constantine Partasides of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Philippe Pinsolle, and Todd Wetmore of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Pierre Mayer of Dechert in Paris; William Park of Boston Alliant & Energy Holdings DoBrasil Ltda. (Brazil) v. Itacatu S.A. (Brazil), Gipar S.A. (Brazil), and Companhia Forca Luz Cataguazes Leopoldina (Brazil) ICC, Brazil Stakes: $300 million Alliant, the minority U.S. shareholder in the Brazilian electricity distribution company Cataguazes, filed an arbitration against Cataguazes and its two controlling Brazilian shareholders, Itacatu and Gipar. Alliant claimed that it was deprived of its corporate governance rights and that a 2003 resolution on capital reduction and dividend distribution breached the shareholders’ agreement. Alliant argued these breaches amounted to a taking and sought $300 million in damages. In September 2005, the tribunal found in favor of claimant Alliant on liability, but adopted respondents’ damages analysis and granted damages in the amount of only $6.8 million plus interest. Claimants’ Counsel: Benjamin Israel of Bracewell & Guiliani in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Donald Francis Donovan and Gaetan Verhoosel of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York and Paris Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associes in Paris (Chair); Carlos Henrique DeCarvalho Froes of Froes, Luna & Froes Advogados in Rio de Janeiro; Luis Gastao Paes de Barros Leaes of Leaes Advogados in Sao Paulo BNP Paribas (France), Arval PHH Holdings (UK) Ltd, and Arval PHH Holdings (U.K.) v. AVIS Group Holdings, Inc. (U.S.) and VMS (Bermuda) Holdings Ltd. ICC Stakes: $300 million In April 2000, Avis sold the U.K. arm of PHH Vehicle Services, which it had acquired from Cendant Corp., to BNP’s Arval Fleet Management Services for $1 billion. In this arbitration, BNP Paribas alleged breaches of accounting warranties and dozens of accounting errors. In January 2006, the panel awarded the claimants approximately $130 million, including fees and costs. Claimants’ Counsel: Nicholas Fletcher and Roger Stewart, QC, of Clifford Chance in London Respondents’ Counsel: John Gardiner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York and Paul Mitchard of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver (Chair); Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Abraham Sofaer of Stanford University Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V (Mexico) v. Petroleos Mexicano (“PEMEX”) (Mexico) ICC, Mexico City Stakes: $300 million A dispute related to the construction of large offshore gas-processing facilities of strategic importance to Mexico and its national oil company, PEMEX. The tribunal issued a decision affirming its jurisdiction in November 2006. The final hearing is set for the summer of 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Meadows, Charles Correll, Jr., and Gwen Dawson of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Jose Nestor Garcia Reza of PEMEX in Mexico City Arbitrators: Jorge Suescun Melo of Bogota (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Dario Oscos Coria of Mexico City Fiber Technologies International Limited (Cayman Islands) v. Moscow Oil Refinery OJSC (Russia) Ad hoc, London Stakes: $300 million A dispute arising out of a turnkey contract for the design and construction of a polypropylene processing plant in Moscow. The dispute was resolved on a fast-track timetable. In June 2006, just over four months from the tribunal’s constitution, the arbitrators dismissed Fiber Technology’s claim in its entirety. Claimants’ Counsel: Neville Byford of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in London; Philip Marshall, QC, of Serle Court in London Respondents’ Counsel: Olga Baglay and David Foster of Watson, Farley & Williams in London; Maxim Viktorov of The Legal Intelligence Group Law Firm in Moscow; Nigel Tozzi, QC, and Alex Gunning of 4 Pump Court in London Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); A.A. Kostin of Moscow; R. Mullerson of Moscow and London Fondel Metal Participations B.V. (Netherlands) v. Republic of Azerbaijan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $300 million Fondel alleges that in October 2005 Azerbaijan seized the aluminum plants that Fondel managed, part of a campaign against former minister of the economy Farhad Aliyev, whom Azerbaijan accuses of plotting a coup d’etat financed with privatized state assets. Azerbaijan asserts that it has solid commercial defenses, as well as potential counterclaims. Request for arbitration registered in January 2007. ICSID claims against Azerbaijan have been filed by Barmek Holdings and Azpetrol International. Claimants’ Counsel: John Whittaker and Michael Swangard of Clyde & Co in London Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Jagusch of Allen & Overy in London Arbitrators: To be determined MBDA Ltd. (U.K.) v. Raytheon Company (U.S.) AAA, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $300 million MBDA, a joint venture of Finmeccanica SpA, BAE Systems plc, and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V., has filed a claim for breach of a long-term missile contract. Raytheon claims that the contract has come to an end. Claimants’ Counsel: Allen & Overy; Kaye Scholer Respondents’ Counsel: Herbert Smith; Kirkland & Ellis Arbitrators: Unknown Petrocon India Ltd (India) v. The Ministry of Petroleum and National Gas, Government of India, and another Ad hoc, London Stakes: $300 million A dispute arising out of the Production Sharing Agreement for the Raava oil field in India. The parties have received the award on liability, and are awaiting the award on damages. Claimants’ Counsel: Joseph Tirado of Norton Rose in London; Pallari Shroff of Amarchand Mangaldas in New Delhi Respondents’ Counsel: R. Sasiprabhu of R S Prabhu & Co. in New Delhi Arbitrators: B.N. Kirpal of India (President); J.K. Mehra of New Delhi; G.T. Nanarati of New Delhi Techold Participa��es S.A. (Brazil) and Timepart Participa��es Ltda (Brazil) v. Telecom Italia International N.V. (Italy) and Telecom Italia S.p.A. (Italy) ICC, London Stakes: $300 million A fight over the control of Brasil Telecom Participa��es S.A. Claimants sought to restrain Telecom Italia from returning to the controlling group after Telecom Italia agreed in August 2002 to leave the controlling group to pursue its own commercial interests in Brazil. After a full hearing in March 2005, the case was settled in April 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Arthur Marriott, QC of Debevoise & Plimpton in London Respondents’ Counsel: Claudia Ray and Louis Kimmelman of O’Melveny & Myers in New York Arbitrators: Andre Faures of Brussels (Chair); Lord Irvine of Lairg in London; L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal Zeevi Holdings Ltd (Israel) v. Republic of Bulgaria Ad hoc, Paris Stakes: $300 million After buying the privatized Balkan Airlines Holdings Ltd., Zeevi claims that Bulgaria misrepresented the health of the company. Bulgaria argues, in a parallel arbitration, that Zeevi and Knafaim-Arkia Holdings Ltd. failed to invest what they promised and stripped the company of assets. Awaiting interim award on liability. Claimants’ Counsel: Yaakov Neeman of Herzog, Fox & Neeman in Tel Aviv Respondents’ Counsel: Constantine Partasides, Georgios Petrochilos, and Laura Halonen of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz B�ckstiegel of the University of Cologne (Chair); Avner Yarkoni of Israel; Silvy Chernev of Bulgaria Bayer A.G. (Germany) v. Lyondell Group (U.S.) AAA, Houston Stakes: $274 million A dispute arising out of an ongoing 50-year joint venture formed by Bayer and Lyondell to manufacture propylene oxide, an intermediate petrochemical used to make plastics, foams and other end products. This arbitration concerned operating issues, cost allocation methodologies, non-compete obligations, and license fee disputes. In April 2006, the panel denied Bayer’s claim and affirmed Lyondell’s counterclaims, awarding Lyondell approximately $144 million through June 2005. Respective motions to confirm and vacate are pending in U.S. district court. Claimants’ Counsel: Jack Carnegie and Emil (Tom) Bayko of Jones Day in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Paul Elliott and Michael Lennon of Baker Botts in Houston Arbitrators: Charles Renfrew of San Francisco (Chair); Donald Ziegler of Pittsburgh; Fletcher Yarbrough of Dallas Mittal Steel Holdings AG (Switzerland) v. Czech Republic ICC, Paris Stakes: $260 million Dispute relating to the transfer of approximately 15 percent of the shares in the Czech steel enterprise Mittal Steel Ostrava a.s. (formerly Nova Hut a.s.). Mittal Steel alleges that the Czech Republic failed to transfer the shares to Mittal Steel in accordance with the share purchase agreement of June 2002. The Czech Republic contends that the condition precedent to the sale of those shares has not been satisfied. A hearing was scheduled to be held in late May 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Jean-Yves Garaud of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Patricia Nacimiento of Noerr Stiefenhofer Lutz in Frankfurt Arbitrators: Gino Loercher of Cologne (Chair); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Wolfgang Peter of Python & Peter in Geneva Telecordia Technologies Limited (U.S.) v. Telkom SA Limited (South Africa) ICC Stakes: $260 million A U.S. software firm acquired by the private equity groups Providence Equity Partners and Warburg Pincus in 2005, Telecordia complains that it has never been paid by South Africa’s national phone company Telkom for services that Telecordia rendered under a contract terminated by both parties in 2000. Telkom counterclaimed for an allegedly botched job. In September 2002 the arbitrator decided in Telecordia’s favor on all issues of liability. Telkom argued in domestic courts that the arbitrator had erred and misunderstood aspects of local law. South Africa’s High Court set aside the award in 2003, but the Supreme Court of Appeal reinstated in November 2006. In February 2007 the South African Constitutional Court dismissed Telkom’s application for leave to appeal. The arbitrator is expected to decide the amount of damages later in 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Unknown Respondents’ Counsel: Unknown Arbitrators: Anthony Boswood, QC of London Palmco Corporation (U.S.) v. JSC Techsnabexport (“Tenex”) (Russia) Ad hoc, London Stakes: $250 million Palmco had a long-term deal to supply enriched uranium from Russia’s Tenex to the Korea Electric Power Company. Palmco alleges that in 2002, Tenex terminated the contract as part of an effort to cut out middlemen. A final award is expected in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Mike Yoder, Marcus Quintanilla, and Steven Smith of O’Melveny & Meyers in San Francisco Respondents’ Counsel: Sigvard Jarvin and Carroll Dorgan of Jones Day in Paris Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Robert Briner of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Combisa, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico) v. Petroleos Mexicano (“PEMEX”) (Mexico) ICC, Mexico City Stakes: $240 million The claim involves a dispute related to the construction of large offshore gas-processing facilities of strategic importance to PEMEX and Mexico. Awaiting award on the merits. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Meadows, Adam Schiffer, and Gwen Dawson of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Jose Nestor Garcia Reza of PEMEX in Mexico City Arbitrators: Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid (Chair); Yves Derains of Derains & Associ�s in Paris; Dario Oscos Coria of Mexico City Kia Motors Corporation (Korea) v. Asia Motors do Brasil (Brazil) and others ICC, New York Stakes: $240 million Kia alleged fraud, misappropriation, and other misconduct by its former joint venture partners in Brazil. The tribunal awarded Kia $205 million plus declaratory relief in July 2004. Confirmation proceedings are pending. Claimants’ Counsel: Michael Goldberg, Jay Alexander, and Michael Calhoon of Baker Botts in Houston and Washington, D.C.; Sergio Bermudes of Bermudes Advogados in Rio de Janeiro; E.Y. Park of Kim & Chang in Seoul Respondents’ Counsel: Paulo Lazzareschi of Lazzareschi Advogados and Novaes in Sao Paulo; Roberto Novaes of Plantulli e Mortari Advogados in Sao Paulo Arbitrators: Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau and van den Berg in Brussels (President); Joungwon Kim of Seoul; Luiz Gastao Paes de Barros Leaes of Leaes Advogados in Sao Paulo Wartsila Guatemala and Wartsila Finland v. Duke Energy International Guatemala ICC, Houston Stakes: $225 million A large construction dispute involving a unique power plant fueled by orimulsion (emulsified hydrocarbon material). Complexities were heightened by mechanical completion, final completion, and warranty issues. In April 2006 the panel awarded the claimants about $14 million before interest. Claimants’ Counsel: Michael Lennon of Baker Botts in London Respondents’ Counsel: Steven Stein and Michael Kelly of Stein Ray & Harris in Chicago Arbitrators: Vivian Ramsey, QC, of Keating Chambers in London (Chair); Horacio Grigera Naon of Washington, D.C.; Carl Sapers of Boston Barracuda and Caratinga Leasing Company B.V. (Netherlands) v. Kellogg Brown & Root L.L.C. (U.S.) Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), New York Stakes: $242 million (including $22 million counterclaim) Barracuda claims that KBR breached its engineering and construction contract and warranty in connection with allegedly defective fasteners used in the subsea flowlines for two offshore oil and gas platforms in Brazil. KBR is seeking increased payment for replacing the fasteners. Hearings are expected in 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Grant Hanessian, Michael Stoker, and Danielle Valois of Baker & McKenzie in New York and Rio de Janeiro Respondents’ Counsel: John Dingess and Brian Davidson of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis in Pittsburgh Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London; Alejandro Ogarrio of Ogarrio Daguerre in Mexico City; Michael Shane of San Francisco SkaCoChi Consortium (Peru/Sweden) v. EGECEN S.A. (Peru) Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Miami Stakes: $220 million (including $60 million counterclaim) A series of three arbitrations arising out of an investment in a privatized hydroelectric project in the Peruvian Andes. The initial arbitration, decided in favor of claimant, has allowed the project to move forward. An award in the second arbitration is expected this year. Claimants’ Counsel: J.M. Bellhouse and Paul Cowan of White & Case in London Respondents’ Counsel: Alfredo Bullard and Huascar Ezcurra of Bullard Falla Ezcurra Rivarola in Lima Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver (Chair); Fernando Caturiarias Salaverry of Lima; Nicolas Ulmer of Winston & Strawn in Geneva Tillman Equities Corp. (Cyprus) and Hartlepool Finance Corp. (Cyprus) v. Jersonet Group Inc (Cyprus) and Lardonet Inc (Cyprus) LCIA, London Stakes: $212 million A power struggle between the Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky (claimants) and the Russian oligarch Konstantin Grigorishin (respondents) over ownership of the Ukrainian power companies known as Oblenergos. Claimants allege that, after selling their interest in the power companies to hedge against the outcome of the 2004 Orange Revolution, the respondents regained operating control of the companies by force. The parties presented evidence relating to damages in winter and spring 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Clyde & Co in London Respondents’ Counsel: Osborne Clarke of 2 Temple Back East in Bristol, U.K. Arbitrators: Stephen Males, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London (Chair) Izmit SU A.S. (Turkey) v. Metropolitan Municipality of Kocaeli (Turkey) Location to be determined Stakes: $203 million A dispute over how much the Izmit project company may charge the city of Kocaeli for water from the dam, pipeline, and treatment plants that Izmit has contracted to build and operate. Izmit is owned by Kocaeli, Thames Water Plc, Gama Enerji A.S., Mitsui & Co. Ltd., and a subsidiary of Sumitomo Corp. A hearing was held in March 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Abby Cohen Smutny, Frank Panopoulos, and Lee Steven of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Mesut Cakmak and Tugba Bayman Keskin of Cakmak Avukatlk Burosu in Ankara Respondents’ Counsel: Umit Herguner, Ender Ozeke, and Okan Demirkan of Herguner Bilgen Ozeke Hukuk Burosu in Istanbul Arbitrators: Siegfried Elsing of Holters & Elsing in Dusseldorf (President); Andreas Bucher of the University of Geneva; Rudolf Fiebinger of Fiebinger, Polak, Leon & Partners in Vienna CPConstruction Pioneers Baugesellschaft Anstalt (Liechtenstein) v. Republic of Ghana and Ministry of Roads and Transport (Ghana) ICC, London and Accra, Ghana Stakes: $201 million CPConstruction claims that it is owed payments under several road-building contracts. Ghana contends that the contracts were tainted by corruption, and a Ghanaian court suspended the arbitrators’ authority under Ghana’s Arbitration Act on the ground that the case involved fraud. The arbitral panel concluded (over a dissent) that it could ignore the court order as a “denial of justice,” and rendered a confidential award. Ghana’s motion to set aside the arbitration award is pending in Ghanaian court. Related arbitrations are on hold pending further court proceedings. Claimants’ Counsel: John Tieder, Jr., of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald in McLean, Virginia Respondents’ Counsel: Donald Francis Donovan and Steven Michaels of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York Arbitrators: Eric Schwartz of LeBoeuf Lamb in Paris (Chair); Marc Blessing of Bar & Karrer in Zurich (Chair); John Slater, QC, of Crown Office Chambers in London; Samuel Asante of Asante & Associates in Accra, Ghana El Paso Corporation (U.S.) v. Comision Ejecutiva Hidrelectrica del Rio Lempa (El Salvador) United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Geneva Stakes: $200 million This dispute turned on the interpretation of a prior arbitral settlement, arising out of the parties’ 20-year power purchase agreement. El Paso obtained a 2006 award that preempted a $200 million counterclaim by the respondent and renewed El Paso’s long-term contract. Claimants’ Counsel: C. Mark Baker and Jennifer Price of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Laurence Craig of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in Paris Arbitrators: Robert Briner of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva (Chair); John Beechey of Clifford Chance in London; Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. (Cayman Islands) v. Lagos State Government (Nigeria), Power Holding Company of Nigeria, and Federal Republic of Nigeria ICC, London Stakes: $200 million This claim arises out of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) into which the parties entered in 1999. Enron Nigeria seeks specific performance of the PPA as primary relief. As alternative relief, claimant seeks a declaration that the PPA has been terminated and an order that compells respondents to buy out its interest. The claim was filed in June 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Audley Sheppard of Clifford Chance in London Respondents’ Counsel: Segun Osuntokun and Hakeem Seriki of DLA Piper in London Arbitrators: Robert Smit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York; Tinuade Oyekunle of Nigeria Gilead Sciences, Inc. (U.S.) v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd (Switzerland) and Hoffman LaRoche Inc. (U.S.) JAMS, New York Stakes: $200 million Tamiflu, the only antiviral for the treatment and prevention of influenza A and B, is seen as a key drug to combat a potential avian flu pandemic. Tamiflu was licensed by Gilead to Roche in 1996. In June 2005, Gilead terminated the parties’ development and license agreement. It subsequently initiated arbitration for damages and declaratory relief. The matter was resolved in a November 2005 settlement with an $80.7 million payment to Gilead and an amended development and license agreement that is likely to increase the overall royalty paid to Gilead in the future. Claimants’ Counsel: Cedric Chao and James Schurz of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco Respondents’ Counsel: Joel Cohen of Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York Arbitrators: The dispute was settled prior to the constitution of the arbitral panel. Grid Corporation of Orissa (“GRIDCO”) (India) v. The AES Corporation (U.S.) Ad hoc, Location to be determined Stakes: $200 million Claimant GRIDCO, a state-run transmission business, claims that it is owed payment for supplying electricity to Central Electricity Supply Company (CESCO), an electricity distribution company that was ultimately controlled by AES. Respondent AES counterclaims for the amount that it invested in CESCO before, in its view, it was forced to abandon the business. This arbitration and the parallel matters before the Indian Supreme Court may provide significant guidance to interpretation of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996. The eventual rulings on matters such as the arbitrators’ fees and the site of the hearings will send a strong signal to foreign investors as to whether arbitration in India is a viable alternative. Awaiting award on liability. Claimants’ Counsel: M.G. Ramachandran of New Delhi Respondents’ Counsel: David Lindsey of Clifford Chance in New York; M.P. Bharucha of Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co in Mumbai Arbitrators: David Williams of Auckland (Chair); Donald Donovan of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York; Justice Mishra of India Joseph Abela Family Foundation (Liechtenstein) v. Albert Abela Family Foundation (Liechtenstein) and Albert Abela Corporation (Liechtenstein) ICC, Paris Stakes: $200 million An arbitration following the death of Albert Abela, founder of one of the world’s leading catering businesses, initiated by the foundation of Albert’s younger brother Joseph. The Joseph Abela foundation alleges that the Albert Abela foundation, as 85 percent shareholder of the Albert Abela Corporation, committed management errors, and obtained an inadequate price for the company’s main assets by selling too quickly because of family discord. In early rulings, the panel has removed from the case Albert Abela’s widow and sons, who were initially named as respondents, and dismissed part of the case on legal grounds. Claimant plans to challenge these rulings in French court. Claimants’ Counsel: Antoine Korkmaz and Ibrahim Fadlallah of Robin et Korkmaz in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: David Stewart of Olswang in London; Johannes Burger of Marxer and Partners in Liechtenstein Arbitrators: Gabriele Crespi Reghizzi of Milan (Chair); Gunther Horvath of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Vienna; Bruno Boesch of Froriep & Renggli of London Cycle Resources Investment Corp. (U.S.) and Nukem, Inc (U.S.) v. US Energy Corporation (U.S.) and Crested Corp. (U.S.) AAA, New York and Denver Stakes: $200 million (including interest) A long-running dispute between American companies trading in enriched uranium from Russia and Central Asia, which turns on the scope of a prior award. Respondents have argued in U.S. federal courts that an April 1996 arbitral award entitled them to the fruits of claimants’ contracts with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. In this arbitration, claimants sought a declaration to the contrary, and in May 2006 they received it. Claimants’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm, Francis Vasquez, Jr., and Jonathan Hamilton of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Frances Koncilja of Koncilja & Associates in Denver Respondents’ Counsel: William Fishman of Denver Arbitrators: Unknown Oil Basins Limited (Bermuda) v. BHP Billiton Ltd. (Australia), BHP Billiton Petroleum (BASS STRAIT) Pty Ltd. (Australia), BHP Billiton Petroleum (NORTH WEST SHELF) Pty Ltd. (Australia), and ESSO Australia Resources Pty Ltd Ad hoc, Melbourne Stakes: $200 million Oil Basins Limited alleged that BHP owed it royalties on hydrocarbons produced and recovered off the shore of Victoria, Australia. The tribunal ruled in Oil Basin’s favor on liability in September 2005. The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered the arbitral award to be set aside because the majority arbitrators had not given adequate reasons and had failed to consider BHP’s evidence. Oil Basins is appealing the Supreme Court ruling. The tribunal has yet to assess damages. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Thomas of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in Washington, D.C.; Peter Seidel, Ross Macaw, QC, and Melanie Sloss, SC, of Arnold Bloch Leibler in Melbourne Respondents’ Counsel: John Kelly, B. Walker and D.J. O’Callaghan of Middletons in Melbourne Arbitrators: John Lockhart, QC, of Australia (Chair); Allan McDonald, QC, of Melbourne; Bolivar Andrews of Houston ROZ Trading, Ltd. (Cayman Islands) v. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation (U.S.), Republic of Uzbekistan, Uzpishcheprom Association (Uzbekistan), and Zeromax Group, Inc. (U.S.) International Arbitration Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Vienna Stakes: $200 million ROZ claims that Uzbekistan expropriated its interest in the joint venture Coca-Cola Bottlers Uzbekistan through regulatory proceedings at the behest of Gulnora Karimova, daughter of Uzbek President Islam Karimov. ROZ alleges that the action was retribution for Karimova’s divorce from ROZ managing director Mansur Maqsudi. Then, ROZ claims, respondents conspired in the sale of the stake by Uzbekistan to Zeromax, a company that is allegedly controlled by the jilted Karimova. A parallel complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Claimants’ Counsel: Stuart Newberger of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C.; Alan Gourley of Washington, D.C.; Rudolf Fiebinger of Vienna Respondents’ Counsel: Joseph Loveland and Catherine O’Neill of King & Spalding in Atlanta; Christoph Liebscher and Florian Haugeneder of Wolf Theiss in Vienna; Carolyn Lamm, Stephen Bond, Francis Vasquez, Jr., and Nicole Erb of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Gerhard Benn-Ibler and Peter Solt of DLA Piper in Vienna Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne (President); Thomas Penfield Jackson of Jackson & Campbell in Washington, D.C.; Robert Briner of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva Sociedad Hisp�nica de Automoveis S.A. (Portugal) v. Seat SA (Spain) ICC, Paris Stakes: $200 million A dispute arising out of the breakdown of a contract entered into by Seat and Sociedad Hisp�nica de Automoveis, for the exclusive distribution of Seat cars in Portugal. Sociedad Hisp�nica filed a claim against Seat for unlawful early termination of the contract. In its counterclaim Seat alleged that claimant failed to perform certain obligations under the agreement. Confidential award issued in March 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Unkown Respondents’ Counsel: Unknown Arbitrators: Candido Paz-Ares of Ur�a Men�ndez in Madrid; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Yves Derains of Derains & Associ�s in Paris Sociedad Williams Enbridge y Compania (Venezuela) v. Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (Venezuela) ICC, New York Stakes: $200 million Claim by a joint venture of the American oil services firms Williams Companies Inc and Enbridge Inc against Venezuela’s national oil company, concerning operation of a major port facility. A confidential award in claimant’s favor was issued in October 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: John Bowman and Jennifer Price of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Henry Mendia of Steel Hector & Davis in Miami; Bernie Weininger of Steel Hector & Davis in Caracas Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne (Chair); Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Andrea Giardina of the University of Rome Gulf Resources Corporation (Panama) v. Republic of Congo ICC, Paris Stakes: $174.4 million An African oil supply claim dismissed on the basis of corruption. Under a 1994 agreement, Gulf Resources sought delivery of 3.6 million barrels or the value of the 3.6 million barrels at the prevailing market price. Congo asserted that the agreement was the result of a corruption scheme involving a former Minister of Oil. In January 2006 the tribunal accepted Congo’s defense that the agreement was null and void due to bribery, and the panel dismissed the case. Claimants’ Counsel: Dana Contratto and Stuart Newberger of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Jean-Yves Garaud and Roland Ziade of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Arbitrators: Laurent Levy of Schellenberg & Wittmer in Geneva (Chair); Fred Fielding of Wiley Rein & Fielding in Washington, D.C.; Serge Lazareff of Paris Compania Nacional de Cimento Portland (Brazil) v. CP Cimento e Participacoes (Brazil) and Latcem SA (Luxembourg) ICC, Location to be determined Stakes: $100 million Part of a long-running fight over the management and control of Cimento Tupi SA. Claimant CNPC is a subsidiary of the French Lafarge Group, the largest cement manufacturer in the world and a minority shareholder in Tupi. Respondent CP Cimento is Brazil’s largest cement manufacturer and the controlling shareholder of Tupi. Hearing on the merits is scheduled to begin in September 2007 in Rio de Janeiro. Claimants’ Counsel: Unknown Respondents’ Counsel: Unknown Arbitrators: Klaus Sachs of Munich (Chair); Otto de Witt Wijnen of Rotterdam; Yves Derains of Derains & Associ�s in Paris CTF Holdings and Hotel Property Investments (British Virgin Islands) Ltd. v. Marriott International Inc. (U.S.) ICDR, New York Stakes: Several hundred million dollars The owner of several dozen hotels in North America, Europe and Australia, CTF accused its hotel operator, Marriott, of breach of management contract, breach of agency, denial of audit rights, fraud, constructive trust, and RICO violations. The claims were settled when Marriott purchased the hotels at issue from CTF for $1.452 billion. The deal was substantially completed in June 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Jonathan Lerner, Barry Garfinkel, Michael Gruenglas, Maura Barry Grinalds, and Timothy Nelson of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Unknown Chiron Corporation (U.S.) v. Institut Pasteur (France) CPR, New York Stakes: Declaratory relief A patent dispute involving a genetically engineered diagnostic test for the AIDS virus used by blood banks all over the world. The arbitrator found in favor of Chiron, and in June 2006 he ordered Institut Pasteur to withdraw a lawsuit in U.S. district court seeking review of an interference proceeding determination by the Patent and Trademark Office. Claimants’ Counsel: Rachel Krevans and Matthew Kreeger of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco Respondents’ Counsel: Albert Breneisen and Richard Gresalfi of Kenyon & Kenyon in New York Arbitrators: James Carrigan of Judicial Arbiter Group in Denver

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.