X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Hulley Enterprises, Ltd. (Cyprus), Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man), and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation Ad hoc (UNCITRAL; administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration), The Hague Stakes: Over $50 billion Largest arbitration ever. The majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Company, affiliated with Group Menatep Ltd., argue that Russia expropriated Yukos assets by driving the company into bankruptcy through bogus tax claims in a vendetta against founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Their cases were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty, a multilateral convention on trade and investment that is unratified by Russia, but contains a provisional application clause. Russia disputes that it is bound by the ECT and contests claimants’ standing. Although originally valued at $33 billion, the three claims are worth more than $50 billion based upon the valuation implied for the production unit that was Yukos’s main asset, Yuganskneftegas, when its current owner, Rosneft Oil Company, went public in 2006. Hearings on jurisdiction set for June 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Yas Banifatemi, and Philippe Pinsolle of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Greig and Claudia Annacker of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Daniel Price of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. Libananco Holdings Co. Limited (Cyprus) v. The Republic of Turkey ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $10.1 billion Largest ICSID claim to date. Libananco brings expropriation claims under the Energy Charter Treaty based on its majority stake in two utilities once controlled by the controversial Uzan family that operate 11 Turkish dams and power plants ["Turkish Bath," Focus Europe, Winter 2007]. Turkey seized the utilities, Cukurova Elektrik Anonim Sirketi (CEAS) and Kepez Elektrik Turk Anonim Sirketi, in June 2003�for political reasons, according to the claimant, but for financial reasons, according to the respondent. Turkey suspects Libananco of ties to the Uzans, and questions its status as a foreign investor. The panel convened its first session in February 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Stuart Newberger, Dana Contratto, and Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C.; Achilleas Demetriades of Achilleas Demetriades in Nicosia, Cyprus Respondents’ Counsel: Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York, Brian King of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Amsterdam, and Jan Paulsson and Noah Rubins of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Aydin Cosar, Utku Cosar, and Arzu Cosar of Cosar Avukatlik Burosu in Istanbul Arbitrators: Michael Hwang of Singapore (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Frank Berman, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London Cementownia “Nowa Huta” S.A. (Poland) v. The Republic of Turkey ICSID (Additional Facility Rules), Washington, D.C. Stakes: $4.65 billion A Libananco copycat case. Cementownia brings expropriation claims under the Poland-Turkey BIT based on its minority stake in the Kepez and CEAS utilities once controlled by the Uzan family. Turkey seized the utilities in June 2003�for political reasons, according to the claimant; for financial reasons, according to the respondent. Cementownia is suspected of ties to the Uzans, and Turkey questions its status as a foreign investor. The claim was filed in November 2006, shortly before a similar claim by the Polish investor Europe Cement. Claimants’ Counsel: Kaj Hober of Mannheimer Swartling in Stockholm Respondents’ Counsel: Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York, Brian King of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Amsterdam, and Jan Paulsson and Noah Rubins of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Arbitrators: To be determined Giovanna Beccara and others (Italy) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: Over $4.5 billion Largest Latin American treaty claim. The thirtieth ICSID claim against Argentina arising out of that nation’s economic meltdown in 2001�02. Among the emergency steps taken by Argentina was to default on its national debt. Some 195,000 Italian holders of Argentine sovereign bonds filed this claim in September 2006. These investors are among the holdouts who refused to accept the 70 cents on the dollar offered by Argentina in its 2005 settlement with holders of its defaulted bonds. Claimants’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm, Jonathan Hamilton, Abby Cohen Smutny, and Francis Vasquez, Jr., of White & Case in Washington, D.C. and New York Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: To be determined Offshore Power Production C.V. (Netherlands), Enron B.V. (Netherlands), Indian Power Investments B.V. (Netherlands), Travamark Two B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Government of India Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London Stakes: Over $4 billion A BIT dispute flowing from the Dabhol power project, the largest foreign investment in India’s history and one of Enron’s great follies. 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 failed to honor its alleged obligations. In 2003 GE and Bechtel purchased Enron’s stake. After their contract action bogged down in domestic challenges, GE and Bechtel filed this BIT claim in the name of Enron’s Dutch affiliates, based on Enron’s majority share of the project. 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 Bechtel $160 million and GE $145 million. Claimants’ Counsel: John Kerr, Jr., and Robert Smit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York; Robert Nelson, Jr., of Thelen Reid & Priest in San Francisco; Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: David Kavanaugh and Peter Flint of Watson, Farley & Williams in London; Som Mandal of Fox Mandal Little in New Delhi Arbitrators: Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Lord Cooke of Thorndon of New Zealand Europe Cement Investment and Trade S. A. (Poland) v. The Republic of Turkey ICSID, Location to be determined Stakes: $3.8 billion Another Libananco copycat case. Europe Cement brings expropriation claims under the Poland-Turkey BIT based on its minority stake in the Kepez and CEAS utilities once controlled by the controversial Uzan family. Turkey seized the utilities in June 2003�for political reasons, according to the claimant, but for financial reasons, according to the respondent. Europe Cement is suspected of ties to the Uzans, and Turkey questions its status as a foreign investor. The claim was filed in March 2007, shortly after a similar claim by the Polish investor Cementownia. Claimants’ Counsel: Kaj Hober of Mannheimer Swartling in Stockholm Respondents’ Counsel: Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York Arbitrators: Unknown France Telecom Group (France) v. The Republic of Lebanon Ad hoc, Geneva Stakes: $2.9 billion A huge claim that matured into a big award, arising out of France Telecom’s contract to build and operate a Lebanese mobile phone network. The panel rendered a $266 million award against Lebanon in February 2005. Lebanon’s bid to set aside the award was rejected by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in November 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Turner, Reza Mohtashami, and Yasmin Mohammad of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Pierre-Yves Gunter and Sebastien Besson of Python & Peter in Geneva Respondents’ Counsel: Antoine Korkmaz of Robin et Korkmaz in Paris; Xavier Favre-Bulle of Lenz Staehelin in Geneva Arbitrators: Bernard Audit of the University of Paris (Chair); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Antoine Akl of Akl & Akl in Beirut Hussein Nuaman Soufraki (Canada and Italy) v. The United Arab Emirates ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $2.5 billion A case of dual identity. Soufraki, who contracted to operate a port in Dubai, claims that regulators stymied his development of the port in violation of the BIT signed between UAE and Italy. The tribunal declined jurisdiction in July 2004, on the theory that the claimant lost his Italian status when he obtained Canadian citizenship for tax purposes. Soufraki has asked a new panel to annul the first award on the grounds that ICSID exceeded its powers by overriding Italian authorities on issues of Italian nationality. The decision on annulment is expected in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: William Rogers, Whitney Debevoise, Jean Kalicki, and Suzana Medeiros of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C.; Christopher Greenwood of Essex Court Chambers in London Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Jagusch of Allen & Overy in London; Simon Roderick of Allen & Overy in Dubai Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Aktham El Kholy of Cairo; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Florentino Feliciano of the Philippines; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris; Omar Nabulsi Motorola Credit Corporation, Inc. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Turkey ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $2 billion Another round set into motion by Turkey’s Uzan clan. Motorola won a seemingly unenforceable $2 billion Zurich Chamber of Commerce award based on the Uzans’ failure to repay a loan from Motorola to their former mobile phone business, Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. ["Turkish Bath," Focus Europe, Winter 2007]. After Turkey seized Telsim, Motorola challenged Turkey in this BIT action for giving priority to its own grievances over those of Telsim creditors. The case was settled in November 2005 with a $900 million payment by Turkey to Motorola, following Turkey’s successful auction of Telsim to Vodafone Plc. Claimants’ Counsel: Howard Stahl, Steven Davidson, and Jeffrey Pryce of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Sarah Fran�ois-Poncet and Hamid Gharavi of Salans in Paris and Michael Hancock of Salans in Istanbul; Haluk Can Ozel of Ozel and Ozel in Istanbul Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver (President); Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Pierre Mayer of the University of Paris Telefonica S.A. (Spain) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $2 billion A BIT dispute in the telecommunications sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis of 2001�02. The largest of many claims alleging that Argentina violated its treaty obligations by backtracking on its promise to pay foreign investors in dollars. Briefing has been suspended pending negotiations between the parties. Claimants’ Counsel: Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Giorgio Sacerdoti of Italy (President); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Eduardo Siqueiros of Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa in Mexico City Aguas Argentinas, S.A. (Argentina), SUEZ (France), Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. (Spain), Vivendi Universal, S.A. (France) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1.4 billion A BIT dispute in the water sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis of 2001�02. One of three cases, brought by different coalitions of utilities, being heard by the same tribunal. The panel upheld jurisdiction in April 2006 and is permitting public interest groups to file amicus briefs. Final hearings will be held in October 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby and Noiana Marigo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lluis Paradell Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Rome Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Jeswald Salacuse of Tufts University (President); Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Pedro Nikken, former president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Eureko B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Republic of Poland Ad hoc, Brussels Stakes: $1.34 billion This case concerns the privatization of the leading Polish insurer, Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen, or PZU. A divided panel held in August 2005 that Poland breached the Dutch-Polish BIT by canceling PZU’s initial public offering, which would have permitted Eureko to take control. In late 2006, the Brussels Court of First Instance upheld the partial award and rejected a challenge to arbitrator Stephen Schwebel’s impartiality. Poland is appealing the Belgian ruling on impartiality. Damages have yet to be argued in the arbitration. Claimants’ Counsel: NautaDutilh in Amsterdam; White & Case in Warsaw Respondents’ Counsel: Sarah Fran�ois-Poncet of Salans in Paris; Krzysztof Stefanowicz of Salans in Warsaw Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Jerzy Rajski of Warsaw Enersis S.A. (Chile), Chilectra S.A. (Chile), Empresa nacional de Electricidad S.A. (Chile), Elesur S.A. (Chile) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington D.C. Stakes: Over $1.3 billion A BIT dispute in the power sector, arising out of the Argentine peso crisis, based on Enersis’s stakes in the Argentine companies EDESUR and Distrilec Inversora S.A. Proceedings stayed in March 2006 at the parties’ request. Claimants’ Counsel: Mercedes Fernandez of Jones Day in Madrid; Maria Ines Justo of Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz, Jr., in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Cintia Yaryura and Jorge Barraguirre, Government Counsel of the Office of the Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Roberto MacLean of Miranda & Amado Abogados in Lima (President); Luis Herrera Marcano of Caracas; Robert Volterra of Latham & Watkins in London Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises Company (Mauritius) v. The Government of India Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London Stakes: $1.3 billion Another BIT dispute flowing from the Dabhol power project in India. Dabhol was built by Enron with GE and Bechtel, only to be mothballed when the electricity demand fell short of expectations, and a new state administration failed to honor its alleged obligations. After their contract action bogged down in domestic challenges, GE and Bechtel filed this claim in the name of their Mauritian subsidiaries. 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 Bechtel $160 million and GE $145 million. Claimants’ Counsel: John Kerr, Jr. and Robert Smit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York; Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: David Kavanaugh, Peter Flint, Sarita Woolhouse, David Foster and Raja Bose of Squire Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland Arbitrators: Rosalyn Higgins of International Court of Justice in The Hague (President); J. Martin Hunter of Essex Court Chambers in London; Lord Cooke of Thorndon of New Zealand Saluka Investments B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Geneva Stakes: $1.25 billion This case arises out of the privatization sale of shares in a major Czech bank to Nomura Principal Investment PLC and its Saluka affiliate. Partial awards in 2006 held the Czech Republic in violation of its duty to treat foreign investors fairly and equitably, but concluded that a state does not commit an expropriation when it acts pursuant to generally applicable rules accepted internationally as being within the power of nation states. Settled confidentially in autumn 2006, alongside the related contract arbitration between Nomura and the Czech Republic. Claimants’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Peter Turner, Laurence Burger, and Lisa Bingham of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Ian Taylor, Robert Fell, and Toby Robinson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London; Matthias Scherer of Lalive in Geneva Respondents’ Counsel: George von Mehren of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey of Cleveland Arbitrators: Arthur Watts, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London (Chair); L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Peter Behrens of the University of Hamburg EDF International S.A. (France) and Electricidad Argentina S.A. (Argentina) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1.2 billion A BIT case involving an electricity concession in the Buenos Aires area and stemming from the 2002 peso crisis. Suspended pending settlement talks. Claimants’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman and Paolo Di Rosa of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: William Park of Boston University School of Law (President); Gabrielle Kaufman-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Jesus Remon of Uria Menendez in Madrid Vannessa Ventures Ltd. (Canada) v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID (Additional Facility Rules), Paris Stakes: $1.2 billion Part of the arbitration gold rush. This Canada-Venezuela case concerns Vannessa’s alleged acquisition of gold and copper mining rights in Venezuela from Placer Dome Inc. for $50 and future royalties. A hearing on jurisdiction was set for May 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: John Terry of Torys in Toronto Respondents’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman, Paolo Di Rosa, and Gaela Gehring Flores of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder of Essex Court Chambers in London (President); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris The Loewen Group, Inc. (U.S.) and Raymond L. Loewen (U.S.) v. The United States of America ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1.125 billion The first NAFTA investment claim against the U.S., filed in July 1998. A Canadian funeral home chain and its founder sought compensation for the consequences of a runaway Mississippi jury verdict, which set damages of $500 million for a seemingly small dispute with a local funeral home. Although the arbitral panel agreed that “a miscarriage of justice” had occurred, in June 2003 it denied jurisdiction. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia finally denied a petition to vacate the arbitration award in November 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C.; Geoffrey Cowper, QC, of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; John Lewis, Jr., of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Philadelphia Respondents’ Counsel: Mark Clodfelter of the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C.; Joseph Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Anthony Mason of Australia (Chair); Abner Mikva of the U.S.; Lord Mustill of the U.K. Chevron Corp. (U.S.) and Texaco Petroleum Co. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Ecuador Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $1.1 billion Chevron cries denial of justice over the Ecuadorian courts’ long delay in resolving seven commercial claims brought by Texaco against the state and PetroEcuador in the early 1990s. In the underlying suits, Texaco alleged that Ecuador violated their 1973 production contract by requiring the company to supply Ecuador more oil than it needed internally, at below-market prices. This arbitration is unrelated to Texaco’s other long-standing dispute in Ecuador, over ecological damage to the Amazon Basin. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop, Roberto Luzi, and Wade Coriell of King & Spalding in Houston; Alejandro Ponce Martinez of Quevedo & Ponce in Quito Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Ecuador Arbitrators: Chair has not yet been appointed; Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels Empresa Electrica del Ecuador Inc. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Ecuador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1.1 billion A private utility incorporated in the U.S., the claimant EMELEC alleges that the Ecuadorian military seized its electricity-generating facilities in Guayaqil in March 2000, after its former owner, Ecuadorian businessman Fernando Aspiazu, was charged with banking irregularities. Among other contentions, Ecuador disputes EMELEC’s right to invoke the benefits of the BIT based on its ownership and control. Briefing under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Mark Sparks of Provost & Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Texas; Henry St. Dahl of the Offices of Henry St. Dahl in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Volterra and Alejandro Escobar of Latham & Watkins in London; Alberto Wray of Cabezas & Wray in Washington, D.C., and Quito Arbitrators: Jorge Sepulveda Amor of the International Court of Justice (President); W. Michael Reisman of Yale Law School; John Rooney of Shutts & Bowen in Miami ENI Dacion B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID, Washington D.C. Stakes: Over $1 billion The first case brought against Venezuela for pressuring foreign oil companies to renegotiate operating contracts. A Spanish-language arbitration, filed in November 2006. As of early April 2007, ENI was one of only two oil companies to decline the new terms dictated by Venezuelan president Hugo Ch�vez. It remains to be seen whether the industry will be so compliant in renegotiating contracts in Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt oil fields. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, Alex Yanos of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York, and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Rome; Andres Mezgravis of Travieso Evans Arria Rengel & Paz in Caracas Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Venezuela Arbitrators: To be determined Eritrea v. Ethiopia Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, The Hague Stakes: Over $1 billion The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission was established by the “December Agreement” signed in 2000 between Eritrea and Ethiopia under the auspices of the U.N. Secretary General. It sets compensation for injuries flowing from violations of international humanitarian law committed during the war between the two nations. The arbitrators ruled on the merits of the claims in late 2005, with both sides declaring victory on certain issues. The hearing on damages is set for late 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Lea Brilmayer of Yale University; James Crawford of the University of Cambridge; Robert Volterra of Latham & Watkins in London Respondents’ Counsel: O. Thomas Johnson, Jr., of Covington & Burling; David Caron of the University of California at Berkeley. Arbitrators: Hans van Houtte (President); George Aldrich; John Crook; Dean James Paul; Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York Eurotunnel Group (France and U.K.) v. The French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Permanent Court of Arbitration, Brussels Stakes: Over $1 billion Eurotunnel Group claims that France and the U.K. violated their obligations under the 1986 Treaty of Canterbury and the concession agreement for operating the Channel Tunnel. Among other things, Eurotunnel was unhappy with competing French ferry service and with the location of a refugee camp for British asylum-seekers near the tunnel’s mouth in Calais. In January 2007, the panel found both nations in violation (France unanimously and Britain by split decision). Separate briefing on damages has begun. Claimants’ Counsel: Matthew Weiniger of Herbert Smith in London Respondents’ Counsel: Jean-Luc Florent and Dietmar Petrausch of Minist�re des Affaires �trang�res in Paris; Chris Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London Arbitrators: James Crawford of Cambridge University (Chair); L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice; Lord Millet of the U.K. Occidental Petroleum Corporation (U.S.) and Occidental Exploration and Production Company (U.S.) v. The Republic of Ecuador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: Over $1 billion In May 2006, Ecuador’s Minister of Energy and Mines seized Occidental’s oil interests in the country, declaring that Occidental violated their contract by farming out some of its production to Encana Corporation in 2000. Occidental scoffs that its Encana deal was proper and duly notified and that Ecuador invented its pretext within weeks of being tagged with a $75 million award in Occidental’s other treaty arbitration, over increased taxes on foreign oil producers. Occidental expected the English Court of Appeals to confirm the $75 million award in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: David W. Rivkin of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York, Mark Friedman of Debevoise & Plimpton in London, and Gaetan Verhoosel of Debevoise & Plimpton in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Ecuador Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); David Williams, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris Total S.A. (France) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1 billion An English-Spanish BIT arbitration, based on the emergency economic measures imposed by Argentina on the gas and electricity industries in 2001�2002. The tribunal has denied a jurisdictional challenge by Argentina. Final hearing set for January 2008. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby, Georgios Petrochilos, and Noah Rubins of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Lucy Reed and Alex Yanos of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York; Luis Erize of Abeledo Gottheil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Giorgio Sacerdoti of Italy (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Luis Herrera Marcano of Caracas Methanex Corporation (Canada) v. The United States of America Ad hoc (UNCITRAL with ICSID administration), Washington, D.C. Stakes: $970 million Canadian methanol producer Methanex argued that a California environmental regulation that banned methanol as a gasoline additive violated NAFTA by favoring U.S. makers of ethanol. This was the first NAFTA dispute to open its hearings to the public and to accept amicus curiae submissions. In August 2005 the panel found against Methanex on both jurisdiction and the merits, awarding the U.S. $4 million in costs. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Barton Legum and Andrea Menaker of the U.S. State Department Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Martin Rowley; Warren Christopher (asresigned after the challenges by Methanex) BP America Production Co. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $900 million A BIT claim in the oil and gas sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The panel upheld jurisdiction in July 2006. Final hearing is set for March 2008. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Craig Miles of King & Spalding in Houston; Jose Martinez de Hoz, Jr., of Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz, Jr., in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Lucius Caflisch of Geneva (President); Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris Pan American Energy LLC (U.S.) and BP Argentina Exploration Co. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $900 million A BIT claim in the oil and gas sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The panel upheld jurisdiction in July 2006. Final hearing is set for March 2008. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Craig Miles of King & Spalding in Houston; Jose Martinez de Hoz, Jr. of Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz, Jr. in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Lucius Caflisch of Geneva (President); Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris Mittal Steel Company N.V. (Netherlands) and Mittal Steel Holdings N.V. (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), London Stakes: $830 million A BIT claim for discriminatory treatment in connection with the privatization of Vitkovice Steel, which Mittal sought and failed to acquire through subsidiaries in the Czech Republic. Briefing under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Jean-Yves Garaud and Claudia Annacker of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris and Matthew Slater of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Hunter of Lovells in Frankfurt Am Main;Miroslav Dubovsky of Lovells in Prague Arbitrators: Lord Johan Steyn of Essex Court Chambers in London; Piero Bernadini of Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Christopher Greenwood, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London Enron Corp. (U.S.) and Ponderosa Assets LP (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $800 million One of two BIT claims by Enron and Ponderosa arising out of the Argentine peso crisis. Claimants seek compensation for stamp taxes, penalties, and interest assessed by various Argentine provinces against their Argentine gas pipeline subsidiary. After the panel affirmed its jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief, the case settled confidentially in December 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Craig Miles of King & Spalding in Houston; Guido Tawil and Hector Huici of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuna of the University of Chile (President); Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva; Hector Gros Espiell of Montivideo Socit� G�n�rale (France) v. The Dominican Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $680 million A claim under the French-Dominican BIT for the Dominican Republic’s alleged failure to adhere to the regulatory structure that it promised to establish in 1998 for the distribution of electricity. This is the first arbitration brought against the Dominican Republic regarding its partial privatization of the electricity sector. The claim was filed in March 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan and Joseph Profaizer of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Unknown Arbitrators: To be determined Bayview Irrigation District (U.S.) and others v. The United Mexican States ICSID, Location to be determined Stakes: $668 million Farmers in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, along with several water districts and a municipal water supply company, complain under NAFTA Chapter 11 that Mexico has expropriated their investment by diverting nearly a million acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande River for the use of Mexican farmers. Mexico is contesting jurisdiction on the grounds that the claimants hold no investment and that any dispute is properly settled under a 1944 water treaty. Claimants’ Counsel: Nancie Marzulla of Marzulla & Marzulla in Washington, D.C.; Don Wallace, Jr., Chair of the International Law Institute in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz, Director General de Consultoria Juridica de Negociaciones Arbitrators: Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College in Oxford (President); Edwin Meese III of The Heritage Foundation; Ignacio Gomez-Palacio Oxus Gold plc (U.K.) v. The Kyrgyz Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $630 million Oxus Gold claims that Kyrgyzstan repeatedly annuled its mining license for purported failure to meet contractual deadlines, and awarded the license to another company. Oxus seeks the reinstatement of its license or compensation for lost profits. Oxus filed this claim under the U.K.�Kyrgyz investment treaty in June 2006. Briefing on jurisdiction is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Audley Sheppard, Nola Donachie, and James Dingley of Clifford Chance in London Respondents’ Counsel: Jean-Christophe Honlet; Glenn Kolleeny and Guillaume Borg of Salans in Paris Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuna of the University of Chile (Chair); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the European University Institute in Italy Azurix Corp. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C., and Paris Stakes: $600 million One of the first awards arising out of the Argentine peso crisis. In July 2006, the panel concluded that Argentina violated the U.S.�Argentina BIT when the Province of Buenos Aires terminated Azurix’s 30-year concession to provide water services. It awarded Azurix $165 million plus pre-award interest of about $20 million. Argentina applied with ICSID to have the award annuled in November 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Craig Miles of King & Spalding in Houston; Guido Tawil and Francisco Gutierrez of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Andres Rigo Sureda of Spain (President); Marc Lalonde of Strikeman Elliott in Montreal; Daniel Martins of Montevideo Ioan Micula (Sweden), Viorel Micula (Sweden), S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill SRL, and S.C. Multipack SRL v. The Government of Romania ICSID, Paris Stakes: $600 million A claim brought against Romania by two individuals and three food and beverage companies under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The claimants allege that Romania improperly withdrew certain state aids and tax benefits in disadvantaged areas of the country. Romania contends, among other things, that these steps were taken as part of the E.U. accession process. Claimants’ Counsel: Gerold Zeiler of Schoenherr in Vienna; Prof. Christoph Schreuer of the University of Vienna Respondents’ Counsel: Brian King and Jacomijn Van Haersolte of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Amsterdam, Georgios Petrochilos of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, and Boris Kasolowsky of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Frankfurt; (Respondent’s co-counsel) Manuela Nestor of Nestor Nestor Diculescu Kingston Petersen Attorneys & Counselors of Bucharest Arbitrators: Laurent Levy of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C.; Claus-Dieter Ehlermann of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Brussels The AES Corporation (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Location to be determined Stakes: $575 million The first of many electricity sector BIT cases to arise out of Argentina’s peso crisis, and one of the first to reach an interim settlement. In August 2006, AES finally withdrew all claims relating to its investments in two distribution companies, Empresa Distribuidora de Energia Norte SA and Empresa Distribuidora de Energia Sur S.A. The remainder of AES’s claims remain suspended pending implementation of the settlement agreement. Claimants’ Counsel: David Lindsey and James Hosking of Clifford Chance in New York; Uriel O’Farrell of Estudio O’Farrell in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Pierre-Marie DuPuy of the European University Institute in Italy (Chair); Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne; Domingo Bello Janeiro of Escola Galega de Administracion Publica Canfor Corporation (Canada), Terminal Forest Products Ltd. (Canada), Tembec Inc. (Canada) and others v. The United States of America Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $540 million These three NAFTA Chapter 11 claims grew out of the softwood timber trade wars that have raged in North America for two decades. The consolidated case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds in June 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: P. John Landry of Davis & Company in Vancouver; Keith Mitchell of Harris & Company in Vancouver; Elliot Feldman of Baker & Hostetler in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: U.S. State Department Arbitrators: Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels (President); Davis Robinson; Armand de Mestral Archer Daniels Midland Co. (U.S.) and Tate & Lyle Food and Industrial Ingredients America, Inc. (U.S.) (formerly A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co.) v. The United Mexican States ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $500 million Claimants are challenging Mexico’s taxation of products that use high fructose corn syrup. The tax at issue has been found in a WTO proceeding to violate international trade rules. The panel rejected a request by Mexico to consolidate this arbitration with the similar claim brought by Corn Products International, Inc. Hearing on the merits was held in March 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C.; Warren Connelly of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz, Director General de Consultoria Juridica de Negociaciones Arbitrators: Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid (President); Arthur Rovine of Baker & McKenzie in New York; Eduardo Siqueiros of Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa in Mexico City Cemex Asia Holdings Ltd. (Singapore) v. The Republic of Indonesia ICSID, Delocalized proceedings pursuant to the ICSID Convention Stakes: $500 million The Mexican cement manufacturer Cemex SA de CV bought a 25 percent stake in the Indonesian state-owned cement producer, PT Semen Gresik in 1998. Alleging management problems at regional subsidiaries of Semen Gresik, Cemex Asia sought the return of its investment or damages for breach of the conditional sale and purchase agreement. In addition, Cemex made the first ICSID claim under the 1987 ASEAN Treaty, citing expropriation and unfair and inequitable treatment. The case settled in August 2006 on confidential terms after Cemex Asia sold its stake in Semen Gresik to the Indonesia-based Rajawali Group for about $337 million. Claimants’ Counsel: Barry Garfinkel and Marco Schnabl of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Kim Rooney and Paul Friedland of White & Case in Hong Kong; Abby Cohen Smutny and Carolyn Lamm of White & Case in New York Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Robert von Mehren of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris PSEG Global Inc. (U.S.) and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Uretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Turkey) v. The Republic of Turkey ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $500 million Dispute regarding a proposed project for the construction and operation of a lignite coal�powered electrical power plant. No power plant was ever built. In January 2007, the panel dismissed most of the claims, but held Turkey liable for approximately $9 million in damages in connection with a claim for fair and equitable treatment. Claimants’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutny of White & Case in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuna of the University of Chile (President); L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva RSM Production Corporation (U.S.) v. The Government of Grenada ICSID, Location to be determined Stakes: $500 million An ICSID arbitration arising out of Grenada’s alleged repudiation of an oil exploration and production agreement with Colorado-based RSM. It is the first ICSID arbitration to be brought against Grenada. Hearings set for June 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Unknown Respondents’ Counsel: Unknown Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); David Barnes of Cambridge; Bernard Audit of Paris Telekom Malaysia Berhad (Malaysia) v. The Government of Ghana Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), The Hague Stakes: $500 million Telekom Malaysia complained that regulatory actions stripped it of control in Ghana’s national telecom company. The case is best remembered for Ghana’s petition to a Dutch court compelling arbitrator Emmanuel Gaillard to resign an assignment as counsel in a case presenting similar issues ["Are Two Hats Too Many?" Focus Europe, Summer 2005]. The parties settled confidentially in spring 2005, on the eve of an award. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Volterra of Latham & Watkins in London; Justin D’Agostino of Herbert Smith in London Respondents’ Counsel: Arthur Marriott, QC, and Mark Friedman of Debevoise & Plimpton in London Arbitrators: Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels (Chair); Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris; Robert Layton of Layton Law Office in Connecticut TSA Spectrum de Argentina, S.A. (Netherlands) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington D.C. Stakes: $500 million TSA Spectrum alleges violations of the Argentina-U.S. BIT for Argentina’s termination of TSA Spectrum’s concession to monitor the radio spectrum, awarded as part of Argentina’s 1990s privatization program. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop, Craig Miles, and Roberto Luzi of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Hans Danelius of Stockholm (President); Grant Aldonas of Washington, D.C.; Georges Abi-Saab of Cairo Victor Pey Casado (Spain) and Fundacion Presidente Allende (Spain) v. The Republic of Chile ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $500 million Claimants claim a violation of the Spain-Chile BIT based on Chile’s alleged refusal to renounce the seizure of Casado’s newspaper by the regime of General Augusto Pinochet in 1973. Chile denies that Casado was the owner and argues that, in any event, the BIT ratified in the 1990s is not applicable to governmental acts taken two decades earlier. Chile also argues that Casado has no standing because he was a dual Chilean-Spanish national. Casado argues that he has standing because he is exclusively a Spanish citizen, having been deprived of his dual nationality in 1973. He also contends that 90 percent of his ownership rights have been transferred to the Spanish Allende Foundation. A supplemental hearing on jurisdiction following the appointment of new arbitrators was held in January 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Juan Garces of Juan E. Garces, Abogado in Madrid; Carole Malinvaud of Gide Loyrette in Paris; Samuel Buffone of Ropes & Gray in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman and Paolo Di Rosa of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Pierre Lalive of Lalive & Partners in Geneva (President); Mohamed Chemloul of Chemloul & Associ�s in Algiers; Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Siemens A.G. (Germany) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $460 million A BIT dispute arising out of the Argentine currency crisis, based on Siemen’s contract to create information systems for Argentine elections, personal identification, and immigration. In August 2003 the panel confirmed its jurisdiction. In February 2007 the panel awarded Siemens approximately $218 million damages plus interest. It also ordered that Argentina return a $20 million bond and assume $44 million in Siemens subcontractor claims. However, the panel declined to award Siemens future lost profits. Claimants’ Counsel: Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires; Peter Gnam of Siemens AG in Munich Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Andres Rigo Sureda of Spain (President); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Domingo Bello Janeiro of Escola Galega de Administracion Publica Camuzzi International S.A. (Luxembourg) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $450 million A BIT dispute arising out of the Argentine currency crisis, concerning Camuzzi’s investment in electric utilities. Settled in January 2007 with the renegotiation of Camuzzi’s local electricity license. Not to be confused with Camuzzi’s gas utility claim, which is expected to be resolved in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Enrique Gomez-Pinzon of Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C. (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Hector Gros Espiell of Uruguay Impregilo S.p.A. (Italy) v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $450 million Pakistan contracted with the Italian multinational Impegilo to construct a series of canals, bridges, and dams. Alleging that the Pakistani water authority missed the contract’s key deadlines and requirements, Impregilo filed a claim for expropriation under the Italian-Pakistani BIT. Settled confidentially in August 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Pakistan Arbitrators: Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice (President); Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid; Toby Landau of London Newmont USA Ltd. (U.S.) and Newmont (Uzbekistan) Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan ICSID, Not Available Stakes: $450 million Newmont claims that Uzbekistan violated its foreign investment law and certain investment treaty obligations by imposing taxes on income from a gold mine. Uzbekistan contends that Newmont failed to duly pay its taxes. The case was filed in December 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: O. Thomas Johnson, Jr., of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: David Rivkin of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York; Barton Legum of Debevoise & Plimpton in Paris Arbitrators: Unknown Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Germany) v. The Republic of the Philippines ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $425 million The owner and operator of the Frankfurt airport, Fraport invested more than $425 million in the construction of a new terminal at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Following construction of the terminal, Fraport alleges that the Philippines nullified the contracts and seized the terminal in violation of its investment treaty. The Philippines defends the actions of its officials and accuses Fraport of corruption. Award on jurisdiction and liability expected in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Jeffrey Barist of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York and Michael Nolan of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in Washington, D.C.; Cesar Manalaysay and Edgardo Balois of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako in Manila Respondents’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutny of Washington, D.C.; Judge Florentino Feliciano of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in Manila Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid; W. Michael Reisman of Yale Law School Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi Ankara (Turkey) v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $400 million Bayindir, a Turkish construction firm, alleges that Pakistan, after a change in government, stripped it of a major highway contract in favor of local companies. Pakistan objected to jursidiction on the grounds that Bayindir had merely asserted “re-packaged” contract claims. The panel affirmed jurisdiction in November 2005. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Michael Buhler and Jonathan Eades of Jones Day (resigned); Farrukh Qureshi of Walker Martineau Saleem in Islamabad Respondents’ Counsel: V. V. Veeder, QC, Christopher Greenwood, QC, and Samuel Wordsworth of Essex Court Chambers in London Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Frank Berman, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade (Canada) v. The United States of America Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $400 million The members of Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade have filed an action against the U.S. under the “national treatment” provision in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. The cattlemen complain that the U.S.’s closure of the border to Canadian cattle in May 2003 was not justified by health concerns and sent the price of Canadian beef into a nosedive. Among other contentions, the U.S. argues that the cattlemen have no standing because they had no investment in the U.S. Hearing on jurisdiction is set for October 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Michael Woods of Heenan Blaikie in Ottawa; Todd Grierson Weiler of Calgary Respondents’ Counsel: Mark Clodfelter and Andrea Menaker of the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne (Chair); James Bacchus of Greenberg Traurig in Washington, D.C.; Lucinda Low of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C. V. G. Gallo (U.S.) v. The Government of Canada Ad hoc, Location to be determined Stakes: $355 million Vito Gallo, who is a U.S. citizen, argues that Canada is liable under NAFTA for the expropriation of his investment in a planned landfill. Gall alleges that the province of Ontario imposed regulation and legislation for a non-hazardous waste dump in an old iron mine outside Toronto. The notice of arbitration was filed in October 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Charles Gastle of Bennett Gastle in Toronto; Murdoch Martyn of Toronto Respondents’ Counsel: Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada Arbitrators: Unknown Brandes Investment Partners LP (U.S.) v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $350 million Brandes complains that its $350 million investment in Venezuela’s national telephone company, CANTV, plummeted in value after President Hugo Ch�vez declared in January 2007 that he would nationalize the company. Brandes filed a request for arbitration in January 2007. ICSID declined to register the request, and Brandes is considering re-filing. Claimants’ Counsel: Michael Nolan of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: To be determined Arbitrators: To be determined Champion Trading Company (U.S.) and Ameritrade International, Inc. (U.S.) v. The Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID, Paris Stakes: $350 million Champion lost its shirt after investing in Egypt’s National Cotton Company. It complained in a BIT action that Egypt discriminated against privatized cotton manufacturers by paying off the bank debts of those that remain public. In October 2006 the panel dismissed all claims against Egypt. In addition, the tribunal ordered claimants to pay the arbitration fees and a significant part of Egypt’s legal fees. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Kirby of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Montreal Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Saint-Esteben, Tim Portwood, Matthieu Pouchepadass, and Raed Fathallah of Bredin Prat in Paris Arbitrators: Robert Briner of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva (Chair); L. Yves Fortier, QC of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Laurent Aynes of Paris Ioannis Kardossopoulos (Greece) v. Georgia ICSID, London Stakes: $350 million The first Energy Charter Treaty case initiated on behalf of an individual. Claimant’s investment vehicle, Tramex International Inc., formed a joint venture, GTI Ltd, to develop Georgia’s oil and gas pipelines. Kardossopoulos alleges that Georgia breached the ECT and the Greece-Georgia BIT by expropriating and unfairly treating his investments. Tramex’s other shareholder plans to file a parallel claim in 2007. Jurisdictional hearing was held in January 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Karyl Nairn and David Herlihy of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London and Timothy Nelson of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Claudia Salomon, Matthew Saunders, Katherine Knox, and Nick Gvinadze of DLA Piper in New York and London Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier, QC of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (Chair); Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile; Arthur Watts of 20 Essex Street in London Corn Products, International, Inc. (U.S.) v. The United Mexican States ICSID (Additional Facility Rules), Washington, D.C. Stakes: $325 million Mexico imposed a 20 percent tax on soft drinks made with any sweetener other than cane sugar, with devastating effect on the claimant’s high fructose corn syrup plant in Mexico. The tax at issue has been found in a WTO proceeding to violate international trade rules. The arbitration panel rejected a request by Mexico to consolidate this case with the similar claim brought by Archer Daniel Midlands and A. E. Staley. An award on state responsibility is pending. If required, a hearing on damages should occur within 6 months of the award on state reponsibility. Claimants’ Counsel: Lucinda Low, Jeffrey Pryce, Jose Gonzalez-Magaz, and Owen Bonheimer of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz (to January 2007) and Luis Alberto Gonzalez Garcia (starting January 2007) of the Ministry of Economy in Mexico City Arbitrators: Christopher Greenwood, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London (President); Andreas Lowenfeld of New York University Law School; Jesus Serrano de la Vega of Bufete Serrano de la Vega in Mexico City Enron Corp. (U.S.) and Ponderosa Assets LP (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $325 million One of two BIT claims by Enron and Ponderosa arising out of the Argentine peso crisis. This claim is based on regulation by the federal government, as opposed to regulations by the provinces, that affected claimants’ Argentine gas transportation subsidiary. An award on the merits is expected in mid-2007. In May 2007, the panel awarded claimants $106 million before interest. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Craig Miles of King & Spalding in Houston; Guido Tawil and Hector Huici of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Fransciso Orreog Vicu�a of the University of Chile (President); Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva; Albert Jan Van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels Vivendi Universal (France) and Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. (Argentina) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $320 million plus interest from 1997 This Argentine water utility case predates the peso crisis. At ten years old, it is ICSID’s oldest active case. In earlier proceedings, claimants’ counsel secured a rare annulment decision. The merits were heard for a second time in summer 2006. Awaiting final award in 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: J. William Rowley of McMillan Binch in Toronto (President); Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Carlos Bernal Verea of Mexico City Lesi S.p.a. (Italy) and Astaldi S.p.a. (Italy) v. The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Forum and location to be determined Stakes: $318 million Claimants allege that Algeria breached the Italy-Algeria BIT by illegally terminating a contract for the construction of a large dam, designed to supply water to the city of Algiers. The panel affirmed jurisdiction in July 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Antonio Crivellaro and Andrea Carlevaris of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan Respondents’ Counsel: Ahmed Laraba and Mohamed Chemloul of Chemloul & Associ�s in Algiers; Dominique Falque of Falque & Associ�s in Paris Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland (President); Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris I&I Beheer B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $314 million Beheer claims a violation of the Dutch-Venezuelan BIT for Venezuela’s refusal to pay on two promissory notes allegedly issued by a Venezuelan state agricultural bank in 1981. Venezuela has presented evidence from a former Scotland Yard forensic expert that the notes are counterfeit. Venezuela also contends that the notes were owned by a Venezuelan resident and sold to a Dutch national just prior to the filing of the case, in an attempt to obtain ICSID jurisdiction. Briefing is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Brian King of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (resigned) Respondents’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman, Paolo Di Rosa, and Gaela Gehring Flores of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne (President); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the European University Institute in Italy ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (Netherlands), ANZEF Limited (U.K.), BNP Paribas (France), Calyon SA (France), Credit Suisse First Boston (Switzerland), Erste Bank der Oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG (Austria), and Standard Chartered Bank (U.K.) v. The Republic of India Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $300 million A BIT case filed by Western banks based on their financing of the Dabhol power project in Mumbai. 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 failed to honor its alleged 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: Som Mandal of Fox Mandal Little in New Delhi Arbitrators: Frank Berman, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Christopher Greenwood, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London; Christoph Schreuer Azpetrol International Holdings B.V. (Netherlands), Azpetrol Group B.V. (Netherlands), Azpetrol Oil Services Group B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Republic of Azerbaijan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $300 million Claimant alleges that Azerbaijan seized its investments as 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 argues that the claimants are Azeris and may not sue their own government on the international stage without straining the limits of the Energy Charter Treaty system. The tribunal was appointed in January 2007. Similar Azeri claims have been brought by Fondel Metal and Barmek Holdings. Claimants’ Counsel: Juliet Blanch of McDermott Will & Emery in London Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Jagusch and Judith Gill of Allen & Overy in London Arbitrators: Arthur Watts, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London (Chair); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Christopher Greenwood, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London Invesmart BV (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $300 million Invesmart alleges that the Czech Republic violated the Dutch-Czech BIT through the revocation of its banking license and other acts that destroyed its investment in a Czech bank. Request for arbitration was filed in January 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Craig Miles and Reggie Smith of King & Spalding in Houston and Ken Fleuriet of King & Spalding in London Respondents’ Counsel: To be determined Arbitrators: To be determined Plama Consortium Limited (Cyprus) v. The Republic of Bulgaria ICSID, Delocalized proceedings pursuant to the ICSID Convention Stakes: $300 million A Cypriot investor in a Bulgarian oil refinery alleges that Bulgaria violated the Bulgaria-Cyprus BIT as well as the Energy Charter Treaty. This is the first ICSID arbitration to proceed to the merits under the ECT. The panel affirmed jurisdiction in February 2005. Briefing on the merits under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Paul Friedland, Carolyn Lamm, Abby Cohen Smutny, and Jonathan Hamilton of White & Case in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Carl Salans of Salans in Paris (President); V.V. Veeder, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London; Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & Van Den Berg in Brussels S&T Oil Equipment Machinery Ltd. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Romania ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $300 million S&T Oil alleges that Romania violated its BIT with the U.S. when the Romanian privatization commission expropriated seven of S&T’s companies. Request for arbitration was filed in January 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Craig Miles and Reggie Smith of King & Spalding in Houston and Ken Fleuriet of King & Spalding in London Respondents’ Counsel: To be determined Arbitrators: To be determined Waguih Elie George Siag (Italy) and Clorinda Vecci (Italy) v. The Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID, Washington, D.C., and Paris Stakes: $300 million Claimants say they were granted the right to develop a waterfront resort in Egypt, but that Egypt confiscated the property in 1996 when they attempted to involve an Israeli partner. Claimants allege the confiscation violated the Italy-Egypt BIT. Among other objections, Egypt contests the standing of an individual born in Egypt to invoke the Italian treaty. The panel affirmed jurisdiction in April 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Reggie Smith of King & Spalding in Houston and Ken Fleuriet of King & Spalding in London Respondents’ Counsel: A. Kamal Aboulmagd and Hazim Rizkana of Helmy, Hamza & Partners (Baker & McKenzie) in Cairo Arbitrators: David Williams of Auckland (President); Michael Pryles of Sydney; Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft (Germany) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C., and Paris Stakes: $300 million A BIT claim in the oil and gas sector, arising out of the Argentine peso crisis, brought by a subsidiary of Germany’s BASF Group. Jurisdictional hearing is set for October 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Jose Martinez de Hoz, Jr., and Valeria Macchia of Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz, Jr., in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Fali Nariman, President of the Bar Association of India in New Delhi (President); Piero Bernadini of Sudio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Santiago Torres Bernardez of Madrid Barmek Holdings AS (Turkey) v. The Republic of Azerbaijan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $290 million Barmek alleges that Azerbaijan seized Barmek’s two electricity concessions as 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. The first investor to file an ICSID case against Azerbaijan, Barmek was soon followed by Fondel Metal and Azpetrol International. Claimants’ Counsel: Murat Yazici of Yazici Law Offices in Ankara; Michael Davison and John Reynolds of Lovells in London Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Volterra and Alejandro Escobar of Latham & Watkins in London and Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert of Latham & Watkins in Hamburg Arbitrators: Peter Gailbraith of Washington, D.C.; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris United Parcel Service of America (U.S.) v. The Government of Canada Ad hoc (UNCITRAL; with ICSID administration), Location to be determined Stakes: $275 million A NAFTA Chapter 11 claim, alleging that the Canadian postal monopoly cross-subsidizes its non-monopoly courier and parcel services to the detriment of UPS’s Canadian arm. It is the first NAFTA claim to examine state responsibility for state enterprises. Among other contentions, Canada argues that its program for magazine delivery falls under the NAFTA exemption for cultural industries. Awaiting an award on the merits. Claimants’ Counsel: Barry Appleton of Appleton & Associates in Toronto and Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Ivan Whitehall, QC of Heenan Blaikie in Ottawa Arbitrators: Kenneth Keith of Wellington (President); Ron Cass of Washington, D.C.; L. Yves Fortier, QC of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal LG&E Energy Corp. (U.S.), LG&E Capital Corp. (U.S.), and LG&E International Inc. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $265 million An Argentine peso crisis claim in the gas distribution sector, resulting in a mixed ruling. In October 2006, the tribunal held that Argentina had breached the standards of fair and equitable treatment and nondiscrimination of the U.S.�Argentina BIT, but rejected a claim for expropriation. It held Argentina liable for damages sustained before December 2001 and after April 2003. In contrast to the CMS v. Argentina panel, the arbitrators here accepted Argentina’s argument that the treaty breach was excused by a state of necessity between December 2001 and April 2003. Damages have yet to be determined. Claimants’ Counsel: Oscar Garibaldi of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Solicitor of The Treasury of Argentina Arbitrators: Tatiana De Maekelt of Caraca (President); Albert Jan Van Den Berg of Hanotiau & Van Den Berg in Brussels; Francisco Rezek of Brazil CMS Energy Corp. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Paris and Washington, D.C. Stakes: $261 million The first Argentine peso crisis claim to result in a final award. In May 2005, the tribunal ordered Argentina to pay approximately $150 million in damages (including interest) for violations of the U.S.�Argentina BIT. In September 2005, Argentina initiated ICSID annulment proceedings in an effort to strike down the award. Claimants’ Counsel: Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York and Nigel Blackaby and Reza Mohtashami of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina; Philippe Sands, QC, of Matrix Chambers in London Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile (President); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Francisco Rezek of Brazil. For the annulment proceedings, the ad hoc committee is Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice; Nabil Elaraby; James Crawford of Cambridge University Noble Energy Inc. (U.S.) and Machala Power Cia Ltd. (Cayman Islands) v. The Republic of Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad (CONELEC) ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $260 million Claimants allege a violation of the U.S.�Ecuador BIT, a breach of the investment agreement signed by claimants with Ecuador, and a breach of the concession contract between CONELEC and MachalaPower for the construction and operation of a power plant. A jurisdictional hearing was held in winter 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Roberto Aguirre Luzi of King & Spalding in Houston; Sebastian Ponce and Javier Robalino of Perez Bustamante & Ponce in Quito Respondents’ Counsel: Maria Rosa Fabara Vera and Diego Ramirez of Fabara & Compania in Quito; George von Mehren and Sarah Rathke of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland and Kevin Levey of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Bernardo Cremades of B. Cremades y Asociados in Madrid Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe, S.A. (Argentina), SUEZ S.A. (France), Sociedad General de Aguas Barcelona, S.A. (Spain), and Interagua, Servicios Integrales del Agua, S.A. (Spain) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $250 million A BIT dispute in the water sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. One of three claims, brought by different coalitions of foreign utilities, that are being heard by the same tribunal. The tribunal upheld jurisdiction in May 2006. Final hearings were scheduled for spring 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby and Noiana Marigo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Rome Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Jeswald Salacuse of Tufts University (President); Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Pedro Nikken, former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Ahmonseto, Inc. (U.S.), E&D Industrial California Overseas Company of America (U.S.), A. BMH & Co., Inc. (USA), Adel Talebagha (U.S.), Aida Talebagha (U.S.), Badie Talebagha (U.S.), and Hala Talebagha (U.S.) v. The Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID, Paris Stakes: $250 million A family-owned California business alleges that its Egyptian textile investments were unfairly treated and expropriated by the state in violation of the U.S.�Egypt BIT. Hearings on jurisdiction and liability were held in May 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Saint-Esteben;Louis-Christophe Delanoy;Tim Portwood Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland (President); Ibrahim Fadlallah of the University of Paris; Alain Viandier of the University of Paris EDFI International, S.A. (France), SAUR International, S.A. (France), and Leon Participaciones Argentinas, S.A. (Luxembourg) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $250 million A case arising out of the peso crisis of 2001�02 that involves an electricity distribution concession with the Argentine Province of Mendoza. Awaiting award on jurisdiction. Claimants’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman and Paolo Di Rosa of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: William Park of Boston University School of Law (President); Gabrielle Kaufman-Kohler of Schellenberg-Wittmer in Geneva; Jesus Remon of Ur�a Men�ndez in Madrid Desert Line Projects (Oman) v. The Republic of Yemen ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $240 million Desert Line’s plan to finance the construction of 1000 kilometers of roads in the Yemeni countryside collapsed in acrimony. Desert Line alleges that, after winning the right to partial payment in a Yemeni court, Yemen blocked the enforcement of the court award by a variety of acts, including the arrest of the chairman’s son and the blockading of its equipment, in violation of the Oman-Yemen investment treaty. Hearings were set for June 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Hamid Gharavi of Salans in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Rodman Bundy and Loretta Malintoppi of Eversheds in Paris Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg (President); Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Ahmed El-Kosheri of Kosheri, Rashed & Riad in Cairo Camuzzi International S.A. (Luxembourg) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $225 million A BIT dispute concerning Camuzzi’s investment in gas utilities, arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Argentina’s principal defense is based on economic necessity. The award on the merits is expected in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop, Craig Miles, and Roberto Aguirre Luzi of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile (President); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Sandra Morelli Rico of Bogota Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. and others v. The United States of America Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $210 million The claimants are Native Americans who manufacture tobacco products on sovereign Indian territory and sell them both on reservation lands and off reservation lands in the U.S. They complain that their business is harmed by enforcement of the 1998 master settlement between 46 state attorney generals and Big Tobacco. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, claimants allege breaches of national treatment and fair and equitable treatment for all of their sales. They also allege expropriation with respect to cigarettes sold off-reservation. Claimants’ Counsel: Leonard Violi of Mamaroneck, New York; Todd Grierson Weiler of Calgary; Chantell MacInnes Mountor of Inch Hammond in Hamilton, Ontario; Robert Luddy of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf in New York; Arif Hyder Ali of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: U.S. State Department Arbitrators: Fali Nariman, President of the Bar Association of India in New Delhi (President); James Anaya; John Crook Occidental Exploration and Production Company (U.S.) v. The Republic of Ecuador LICA, London Stakes: $205 million Occidental says Ecuador violated a BIT when it stopped awarding Occidental a value added tax credit. In July 2004 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction, awarded Occidental approximately $75 million, and ordered Ecuador to refund future tax payments. Ecuador is challenging the award in the English courts. In March 2006 a High Court judge rejected Ecuador’s challenge. An English Court of Appeal ruling is expected shortly. Claimants’ Counsel: David W. Rivkin of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York and Gaetan Verhoosel of Debevoise & Plimpton in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Eric Ordway and Charles Roh of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in Paris and Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile (President); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Patrick Barrera Sweeney of Barrera Molina & Associates in Quito BG Group (U.K.) v. The Argentine Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Location to be determined Stakes: $200 million An ad hoc BIT claim in the oil and gas sector, arising out of the Argentine peso crisis. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby, Lluis Paradell, and Sylvia Noury of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Hector Mairal and Francisco Macias of Marval O’Farrell & Mairal in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Unknown El Paso Energy International Co. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $200 million A dispute under the U.S.�Argentina BIT for measures taken by Argentina that affected El Paso’s investments in the hydrocarbon and electricity sectors. The tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction in April 2006. The final hearing on the merits is set for June 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Craig Miles of King & Spalding in Houston; Jose Martinez de Hoz, Jr., of Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz, Jr., in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Lucius Caflisch of Geneva (President); Piero Bernardini of Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris Gas Natural SDG, S.A. (Spain) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $200 million A Spanish-language arbitration under the Spain-Argentina BIT, arising out of the emergency regulatory measures imposed by Argentina in 2002 on the gas industry. The panel affirmed jurisdiction in June 2005. Following a request by the parties, the tribunal suspended the proceedings in November 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, Vicente Sierra of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Madrid, and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Rome; Uriel O’Farrell of Estudio O’Farrell in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Andreas Lowenfeld of New York University Law School (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Pedro Nikken of Caracas Nordzucker Aktiengesellschaft (Germany) v. The Republic of Poland Ad hoc, Brussels Stakes: $200 million The second-biggest sugar producer in Europe, Nordzucker says it won privatization bids to acquire four Polish sugar groups, but Poland changed its privatization policy before two of the acquisitions could be completed. Nordzucker alleges that Poland failed to treat it fairly and equitably and failed to honor Nordzucker’s legitimate expectations. Hearings are scheduled for October 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: John Willems, Piotr Galuszynski, Charles Nairac, and Melis Acuner of White & Case in Paris and Warsaw Respondents’ Counsel: Grzegorz Domanski and Julita Zimoch-Tucholka of Domanski Zakrzewski Palinka in Warsaw Arbitrators: Vera Van Houtte of Stibbe in Brussels (Chair); Andreas Bucher of the University of Geneva; Maciej Tomaszewski of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in Warsaw Sempra Energy International Co. (U.S.) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $200 million A claim under the U.S.�Argentina BIT over regulatory measures taken by Argentina that affected Sempra’s investment in gas pipelines. Argentina’s principal argument is based on its economic crisis and the defense of necessity. The award on the merits is expected in mid-2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop, Craig Miles, and Roberto Aguirre Luzi of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile (President); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Sandra Morelli Rico of Bogota SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A (Switzerland) v. The Republic of the Philippines ICSID, Paris Stakes: $170 million The Swiss firm SGS alleged that the Philippines breached SGS’s contract to provide port inspection services, and in so doing violated the Swiss-Filipino BIT. In January 2004 the tribunal agreed with the claimant that arbitrators have the power to redress contract breaches under an investment treaty’s “umbrella clause.” However, it dismissed the expropriation claim on the merits, stayed the arbitration at the respondents’ request, and held that the matter had to be referred back to the national courts of the Philippines. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Manuel Teehankee of the Department of Justice in the Philippines; Emmanuel Bonoan of the Department of Finance in the Philippines; Judith Gill and Matthew Gearing of Allen & Overy in London; Christopher Greenwood, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London Arbitrators: Ahmed El-Kosheri of Kosheri, Rashed & Riad in Cairo (Chair); Antonio Crivellaro of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan; James Crawford of Cambridge University Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. (Norway) v. The Republic of Hungary ICSID, London Stakes: $152 million Telenor challenged regulatory initiatives that Hungary says were taken to bring its telecom regime into line with E.U. norms. In September 2006, the panel dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction and awarded full costs to Hungary. The tribunal found that the BIT limited jurisdiction to expropriation claims and none of Telenor’s allegations rose to that level. The arbitrators rejected Telenor’s efforts to expand jurisdiction under a “most favored nation” clause. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Nagy and Agnes Szarka of Nagy Es Trocsanyi in Budapest Respondents’ Counsel: Whitney Debevoise, Jean Kalicki, Annie Khalid Hussain, and Suzana Medeiros of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., and Michael Ryan and Emma Wright of Arnold & Porter in London Arbitrators: Roy Goode of Oxford (President); Nicholas Allard of Washington, D.C.; Arthur Marriott of Debevoise & Plimpton France Telecom S.A. (France) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $150 million A BIT dispute in the telecom sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Settled confidentially in March 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Fernando Mantilla-Serrano, Philippe Pinsolle, and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Unknown F-W Oil Interests, Inc. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago ICSID, Washington, D.C. and Tobago Stakes: $150 million An American independent oil company, F-W alleged that Trinidad and Tobago withdrew a contract that it had been awarded for the regeneration of the Soldado oil and gas fields on the maritime border between Trinidad and Venezuela. According to press reports, the tribunal denied the claim in March 2006, ruling that that F-W had never owned an “investment” within the meaning of the treaty. Claimants’ Counsel: James Loftis, Stephen York, Eugene Silva II, and Mark Beeley of Vinson & Elkins in London Respondents’ Counsel: Unknown Arbitrators: Fali Nariman, President of the Bar Association of India in New Delhi (President); Frank Berman, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London; Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London Industria Nacional de Alimentos SA (Chile) (formerly Empresas Lucchetti S.A.) v. The Republic of Peru ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $150 million A Chilean pasta manufacturer complains that Peru unlawfully denied it permits to build a new pasta factory in an area characterized by Peru as environmentally sensitive. Peru alleges corruption, which claimant denies. The tribunal held in February 2005 that it lacked jurisdiction, because the dispute originated before the signature of the Peru-Chile BIT. In a request for annulment, the investor argues that the panel exceeded its powers by dating the dispute based on subjective motivations rather than the objective time of government action. Claimant also argues that unproven corruption allegations influenced the award. The hearing on annulment was held in winter 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Whitney Debevoise, Jean Kalicki, Annie Khalid Hussain, Suzana Medeiros, and Jorge Alva of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Daniel Price, Stanimir Alexandrov, Nicolas Lloreda, and Sharon Yuan of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Hans Danelius of Sweden (President); Andrea Giardina of Italy; Frank Berman, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London Trinh Vinh Binh (Netherlands) and Binh Chau Joint Stock Company (Netherlands) v. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Stockholm Stakes: $140 million A claim filed under the Netherlands-Vietnam BIT by an overseas Vietnamese who returned to invest in real estate. The investor’s property was confiscated, and he was jailed by the Province of Ba Ria-Vung Tau for alleged land law violations and bribery. The first investment treaty claim against Vietnam, it was settled confidentially in December 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Craig Miles and Reggie Smith of King & Spalding in Houston and Ken Fleuriet of King & Spalding in London Respondents’ Counsel: Christian Camboulive and Michel Pitron of Gide Loyrette Nouel in Paris Arbitrators: Kaj Hober of Mannheimer Swartling in Stockholm (President); C. Mark Baker of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris Eastern Sugar B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL; appointing authority SCC), Paris Stakes: $130 million An Anglo-French joint venture incorporated in The Netherlands, claimant alleged that the Czech Republic violated the Dutch-Czech BIT in its regulation of the sugar industry and allocation of sugar quotas. In April 2007 the panel awarded Eastern Sugar approximately $34 million. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Turner and Mark Mangan of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Eric Teynier of Teynier, Pic & Associes in Paris; Daniel Weinhold of Weinhold Legal in Prague Arbitrators: Pierre Karrer of Zurich (Chair); Robert Volterra of Latham & Watkins in London; Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. (Spain) v. The Republic of El Salvador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $122 million A corruption milestone. Claimant argued that El Salvador breached its contract for motor vehicle inspection services, as well as the Spain�El Salvador BIT. But the tribunal agreed with El Salvador that Inceysa had committed fraud in the public bidding process to obtain the concession contract and that the BIT did not provide relief for claims involving illegally procured investments. In August 2006, the tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction. The decision is believed to be the first to rest on interpretation of the “in accordance with law” clauses found in many investment treaties. Claimants’ Counsel: Alfonso Lopez-Ibor, Juan Concheiro, and Monica Baselga of Ventura Garces & Lopez-Ibor in Madrid Respondents’ Counsel: Whitney Debevoise, David Orta, and Jean Kalicki of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Rodrigo Oreamuno Blancoof Costa Rica (President); Burton Landy of Miami; Claus von Wobeser of Mexico Compania General de Electricidad S.A. (Chile) and CGE Argentina S.A. (Chile) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $120 million A BIT claim arising out of the Argentine currency crisis, involving concessions for electricity distribution in various Argentine provinces. Briefing is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Paolo Di Rosa of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C.; Gonzalo Delaveau of Guerrero, Olivos, Novoa & Errazuriz in Santiago Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin SAUR International (France) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $120 million A BIT claim in the water sector, arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The tribunal asserted jurisdiction in February 2006. Following a request by the parties, the tribunal suspended the proceedings in October 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Fernando Mantilla-Serrano, Philippe Pinsolle, and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Juan Fernandez Armesto of Madrid (President); Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Christian Tomuschat of Berlin EDF (Services) Limited (U.K.) v. Romania ICSID, Delocalised proceedings pursuant to the ICSID Convention Stakes: $110 million A dispute under the U.K.�Romania bilateral investment treaty, relating to airport duty-free and other retail concessions. The case involves allegations of bribery and corruption, as well as complex questions on the attribution of state responsibility to the actions of government-owned corporations. Briefing is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Christoph Liebscher and Florian Haugeneder of Wolf Theiss in Vienna Respondents’ Counsel: Darryl Lew and Abby Cohen Smutny of White & Case in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Piero Bernardini of Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante in Rome (President); Yves Derains of Derains & Associates in Paris; Arthur Rovine of New York Interbrew Central European Holding BV (Netherlands) v. The Republic of Slovenia ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $110 million This case arose out of Interbrew’s failed acquisition of Slovenia’s number-two brewer, Pivovarna Union. Interbrew, now part of InBev NV/SA, claimed that its cross-border bid was killed when Slovenia sold a block of state-owned Union shares to another Slovenian brewer. Interbrew withdrew the claim in July 2005 after selling its minority stake in Union to the other Slovenian brewer, Pivovarna Laska, for �70 million. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard and Philippe Pinsolle of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Greig of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicu�a of the University of Chile (President); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Florentino Feliciano of Manila ADC Affiliate Ltd. (Cyprus) and ADC & ADMC Management Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Republic of Hungary ICSID, London Stakes: $105 million Claimants alleged that Hungary expropriated the concession to manage and operate Budapest Ferihegy Airport, in violation of the Cyprus-Hungary BIT. In January 2006 the tribunal awarded claimants $83.8 million. The tribunal applied the “restitutionary” standard of compensation accepted under customary international law and awarded the current value of the business, rather than the value at the time of the expropriation. Claimants’ Counsel: Pierre Bienvenu and Martin Valasek of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Rene Cadieux of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Montreal; Ivan Szasz and Judit Kelemen of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Budapest; James Crawford of Cambridge University Respondents’ Counsel: Laszlo Bodnar of Bodnar Law Firm in Szeged, Hungary; Jan Burmeister and Levente Szabo of B&T Law Firm in Budapest; Inka Hanefeld of RRKH Law Firm in Hamburg Arbitrators: Neil Kaplan of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Charles Brower of 20 Essex Street in London; Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels Gemplus, S.A. (France) and Gemplus Industrial, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) v. The United Mexican States ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: Over $100 million The claimants are subsidiaries of Gemalto, the world’s leader in digital security. Gemalto is seeking compensation for the United Mexican States’ alleged destruction of Gemalto’s investment in the first private nationwide motor vehicle registration system. This project became a hot political issue during the 2000 presidential election campaign and has been front-page news in Mexico and throughout Latin America. Claimants’ Counsel: David Fraser, Edward Poulton, and Alexis Martinez of Baker & McKenzie in London; Philippe Sands, QC of Matrix Chambers in London Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz and Luis Alberto Gonzalez Garcia, Secretar�a de Econom�a, Consultoria Juridica de Negociaciones, Government of Mexico; J. Christopher Thomas, QC, J. Cameron Mowatt, and Alejandro Barragan of Thomas & Partners in Vancouver; Stephan Becker and Sanjay Mullick of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (President); L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Eduardo Magallon of Magallon y Peniche in Mexico Global Gold Mining LLC (U.S.) v. The Republic of Armenia ICSID, Washington D.C. Stakes: Over $100 million Global Gold claims violations of the Armenia�U.S. BIT after claimants’ mining licenses were revoked for what Global Gold says were political reasons. This is believed to be the first treaty claim ever filed against Armenia. Request for arbitration filed in January 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop and Wade Coriell of King & Spalding in Houston and Ken Fleuriet of King & Spalding in London Respondents’ Counsel: To be determined Arbitrators: To be determined Impregilo SpA (Italy) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington D.C. Stakes: Over $100 million Claimant claims violations of the Italy-Argentina BIT resulting from the alleged expropriation and re-nationalization of claimant’s privatized water concession contract in the province of Buenos Aires. Request for arbitration filed in January 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop, Craig Miles, and Roberto Aguirre Luzi of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: To be determined Arbitrators: To be determined Rail World Estonia LLC (U.S.), EEIF Rail BV (Netherlands), and Railroad Development Corp. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Estonia ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: Over $100 million Claimants contended that Estonia breached multiple commitments made to the investors at the time of the privatization of the Estonian Railways. In particular, the investors contended that Estonian regulators imposed a scheme for shared rail access that denied a reasonable return to the investors. Estonia contended that its regulatory measures were required by the E.U. The case settled in January 2007 when Estonia bought back the railways for $200 million from the investors who had purchased it in 2001 for $58 million. Claimants’ Counsel: Eugene Gulland and Oscar Garibaldi of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Ullar Talviste, Tarmo Sild, and Ain Kalme of Lextal Law Firm in Tallinn, Estonia Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of the University of Cologne; Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Rompetrol Group NV (Netherlands) v. The Republic of Romania ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: Over $100 million A BIT claim alleging unfair and discriminatory treatment of Rompetrol and its executives in Romania’s program of privatization. The proceedings are at an early stage. Claimants’ Counsel: Sarah Fran�ois-Poncet of Salans in Paris and Obie Moore of Salans in Bucharest Respondents’ Counsel: Lalive; Tanasescu, Leaua, Cadar & Asociatii Arbitrators: Frank Berman, QC of Essex Court Chambers in London (President); Donald Donovan of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York; Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal Rumeli Telekom A.S. (Turkey) and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Turkey) v. The Republic of Kazakhstan ICSID, Paris Stakes: Over $100 million Claimants allege that their majority share in Kazakhstan’s leading mobile phone company, Kar-Tel, was expropriated by the state in 2002�03, before being sold to the Russian operator VimpelCom. Hearing on the merits set for October 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Hamid Gharavi and Brenda Horrigan of Salans in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Ali Malek, QC, of 3 Verulam Buildings in London; David Warne and Gautam Bhattacharyya of Reed Smith Richards Butler in London Arbitrators: Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van der Berg in Brussels (President); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Stewart Boyd of Essex Court Chambers in London Talsud, S.A. (Argentina) v. The United Mexican States ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: Over $100 million Talsud, S.A. alleges that Mexico destroyed its investment in Mexico’s first private nationwide motor vehicle registration system. Briefing is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: David Fraser, Edward Poulton, and Alexis Martinez of Baker & McKenzie in London; Philippe Sands, QC, of Matrix Chambers in London Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz and Luis Alberto Gonzalez Garcia, Secretar�a de Econom�a, Government of Mexico; J. Christopher Thomas, QC, J. Cameron Mowatt, and Alejandro Barragan of Thomas & Partners in Vancouver; Stephan Becker and Sanjay Mullick of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (President); L. Yves Fortier, QC, of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Eduardo Magallon of Magallon y Peniche in Mexico African Holding Co. of America, Inc. (U.S.) and Societe Africaine de Construction au Congo S.A.R.L. (D.R.C.) v. The Democratic Republic of Congo ICSID, Paris Stakes: $100 million A BIT claim arising out of contracts for the construction of public infrastructure in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Claimants seek recovery of the amount allegedly owed by Congo under the contracts, plus interest. A hearing on jurisdiction was set for spring 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: David W. Rivkin of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York and Barton Legum of Debevoise & Plimpton in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Tshibangu Kalala of Cabinet Kikangala & Associes in Brussels Arbitrators: Ahmed El-Kosheri of Kosheri, Rashed & Riad in Cairo (President); Otto de Witt Wijnen of Amsterdam; Dominque Grisay of Vanden Eynde & Partners in Brussels Aguas Cordobesas, S.A. (Argentina), SUEZ S.A. (France) and Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. (Spain) v. The Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million A BIT dispute in the water sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. One of three claims, brought by different coalitions of foreign utilities, that are being heard by the same tribunal. In December 2006, the claims were withdrawn as a condition of the investors’ sale of their interests to Roggio S.A. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby and Noiana Marigo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Rome Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Jeswald Salacuse of Tufts University (President); Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva; Pedro Nikken, former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Ares International S.r.l. (Italy) and MetalGeo S.r.l. (Italy) v. The Government of Georgia ICSID, London Stakes: $100 million A claim under the Italy-Georgia BIT, arising out of claimants’ alleged investment in the largest steel plant in the former Soviet Union. Hearing on the merits set for July 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Antonio Crivellaro and Luca Radicati di Brozolo of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan Respondents’ Counsel: Claudia Salomon and Kiera Gans of DLA Piper in New York, Matthew Saunders of DLA Piper in London, and Ted Jonas and Ivan Khokhlov of DLA Piper in Tbilisi Arbitrators: J. William Rowley of McMillan Binch in Toronto (President); John Beechey of Clifford Chance in London; Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Cargill, Inc. (U.S.) v. The United Mexican States ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million Cargill claims that Mexico violated NAFTA by enacting several measures that favored Mexican sugar suppliers over U.S.�owned suppliers of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico characterizes its measures as legitimate retaliation for the treatment of Mexican sugar imports by the U.S. Hearings are expected in late 2007. Claimants’ Counsel: Jeffrey Sarles of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in Chicago Respondents’ Counsel: Luis Alberto Gonzalez Garcia, Secretar�a de Econom�a in Mexico; Stephan Becker of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington, D.C.; J. Christopher Thomas of Thomas & Partners in Vancouver Arbitrators: Michael Pryles of Sydney (President); David Caron of Boalt Law School in Berkeley, California; Donald McRae of the University of Ottawa Cargill, Inc. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Poland ICSID, Paris Stakes: $100 million Another case flowing from the international trade in sweeteners. Cargill claims that Poland harmed Cargill’s isoglucose business, in violation of the U.S.�Poland BIT, when it introduced quotas on isoglucose before Poland’s accession to the E.U. Awaiting final award. Claimants’ Counsel: Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C.; Grzegorz Domanski of Domanski Zakrzewski Palinka in Warsaw Respondents’ Counsel: Stanislaw Soltysinski of Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak in Warsaw Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris; Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels City Oriente Ltd. (Panama) v. The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador ICSID, Quito Stakes: $100 million City Oriente alleges that a new Ecuadorian windfall profits tax is in violation of its oil concession contract. In addition, it has sent a letter of intent notifying Ecuador of a grievance under the Panama-Ecuador BIT. Claimants’ Counsel: Doak Bishop, Craig Miles, and Roberto Aguirre Luzi of King & Spalding in Houston; Alejandro Ponce Martinez of Quevedo & Ponce in Quito Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Ecuador Arbitrators: To be determined Duke Energy Electroquil Partners (U.S.) and Electroquil S.A. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Ecuador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million (including interest and counterclaim) The claimants, who own and operate electric plants in Ecuador, are parties to two power provision agreements signed with Ecuador. Claimants allege breach of the agreements and also breaches of the Ecuador�U.S. BIT. Awaiting award on jurisdiction and the merits. Claimants’ Counsel: C. Mark Baker of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston; Arif Hyder Ali of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C.; Cesar Coronel Jones of Coronel & Perez in Quito Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Volterra and Alejandro Escobar of Latham & Watkins in London; Alberto Wray of Cabezas & Wray in Quito Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Enrique Gomez Pinzon of Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C. Jan de Nul N.V. (Belgium) and Dredging International N.V. (Belgium) v. The Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID, Paris Stakes: $100 million (including interest) Claimants claim that Egypt violated a BIT when an Egyptian trial court rejected claimants’ allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in the tendering of contracts for dredging the Suez Canal. The panel affirmed jurisdiction in June 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: Antonio Crivellaro and Luca Radicati di Brozolo of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Saint-Esteben and Louis-Christophe Delanoy of Bredin Prat in Paris Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Pierre Mayer of Dechert in Paris; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris MCI Energy LP (U.S.) and New Turbine Inc. (U.S.) v. The Republic of Ecuador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million (including interest) Claimants allege breach of the Ecuador�U.S. BIT based on a disputed payment for the installation of two electric power turbines. Ecuador contests that the dispute is covered by the BIT due to the date of the BIT’s entry into force and denies any breach of the BIT provisions. Awaiting an award on the merits. Claimants’ Counsel: Barry Appleton and Robert Wisner of Appleton & Associates in Toronto and Washington, D.C.; Jose Astigarraga of Astigarraga Davis in Miami Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Volterra and Alejandro Escobar of Latham & Watkins in London; Alberto Wray of Cabezas & Wray in Quito Arbitrators: Raul Vinuesa of the University of Buenos Aires (President); Jaime Irarrazaval of Philippi, Irarrazaval, Pulido & Brunner in Santiago; Benjamin Greenberg of Toronto National Grid plc (U.K.) v. The Argentine Republic Ad hoc (UNCITRAL with ICSID administration; appointing authority ICC), Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million An ad hoc arbitration pursuant to the U.K.�Argentina BIT, arising out of the impact of Argentina’s emergency economic measures imposed on claimant’s investment in electricity transmission assets. The tribunal has affirmed jurisdiction. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby and Caroline Richard of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, Sylvia Noury of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London, and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Rome Respondents’ Counsel: Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Andres Rigo Sureda of Spain (President); Whitney Debevoise of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C.; Alejandro Garro of New York Phoenix Action Ltd. (Israel) v. The Czech Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million (including interest) A claim by an Israeli investor against the Czech Republic for expropriation and denial of fair and equitable treatment. The grievance arises out of tax claims and regulatory obstructions to the transfer of ownership in two factories purchased by the investor. First arbitration brought under an Israeli BIT. Claimants’ Counsel: O. Thomas Johnson, Jr. of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Anway of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland Arbitrators: Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris (President); Andreas Bucher of the University of Geneva; Juan Fernandez-Armesto of Madrid Tecnicas Reunidas, S.A. (Spain) and Eurocontrol, S.A. (Spain) v. The Republic of Ecuador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100 million Claimants allege that Ecuador failed to abide by its international obligations in the enlargement of the nation’s largest oil refinery, known as Esmeraldas. Request for arbitration was registered in October 2006. Claimants’ Counsel: C. Mark Baker and Anibal Sabater of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston; Juan Viano of Gomez-Acebo & Pombo in Madrid Respondents’ Counsel: To be determined Arbitrators: To be determined Walter Bau Aktiengesellschaft (in liquidation) (Germany) v. The Kingdom of Thailand Ad hoc (UNCITRAL), Geneva Stakes: $100 million Thailand’s first investment treaty arbitration. Walter Bau seeks compensation for loss suffered in connection with its stake in the company that was awarded the contract to build and operate the Don Muang Tollway in Bangkok. The case is in the jurisdictional phase. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Hunter of Lovells in Frankfurt Respondents’ Counsel: Michael Polkinghorne and Phisit Dejchaiyasak of White & Case in Paris and Bangkok Arbitrators: Ian Barker of Bankside Chambers in Auckland, New Zealand (Chair); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Suvarn Valaisathien of Bangkok

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.