| Arbitration Scorecard: Contract Disputes
By Michael D. Goldhaber
American Lawyer/Focus Europe/Summer 2005
 Reprints & PermissionsThis survey covers 130 large international arbitrations, including 59 treaty disputes with stakes of at least $100 million and 71 contract disputes with stakes of at least $300 million. Each entry includes a brief case description and a list of players, including parties, lawyers, and arbitrators. Disputes are classified as "treaty arbitrations" if they are primarily grounded in a treaty (usually but not always an investment treaty); they are classified as "contract arbitrations" if they are primarily grounded in a contract, even if one of the parties is a nation. The survey covers arbitrations that were resolved between January 2003 and June 2005, or that continue to be disputed. Many cases covered in Focus Europe's first arbitration survey in 2003 are updated. Methodology OAO NK Yukos (Russia) v. Shareholders in OAO Sibneft
London Court of International Arbitration, London
Stakes: $13,000,000,000
In September 2004, while fighting for its survival in Russia, Yukos filed an arbitration against entities controlled by Roman Abramovich and other shareholders in rival Russian oil firm OAO Sibneft. The dispute arises out of an agreement–valued at $13 billion when it was unveiled in April 2003–for Yukos to acquire 92 percent of Sibneft shares. Sibneft announced in November 2003 that the deal would not proceed, and Yukos has never established operational control. In 2004 Russian courts froze Yukos’s 35 percent bloc of Sibneft stock, for which Yukos paid $3 billion in cash, and canceled an issue of Yukos stock that was to be swapped for a reported 57 percent of Sibneft shares.
Claimants’ Counsel: Mark Baker of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston
Respondents’ Counsel: Paul Mitchard and James Hope of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London
Arbitrators: Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal (Chair); Jeffrey Hertzfeld of Salans in Paris; Kenneth Rokison, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London
The National Property Fund of the Czech Republic and The Czech Republic v. Nomura Principal Investment plc (Japan)
Ad hoc, Zurich
Stakes: $8,000,000,000
The Japanese bank Nomura invested in a privatized Czech bank in 1998. Based on the share purchase agreement Nomura signed with the National Property Fund, the Czech Republic seeks to hold the Japanese bank responsible for the state aid later given to the successor of the Czech bank in which Nomura invested. The tribunal has accepted jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s claims, and Nomura has challenged this decision in the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Nomura has filed a parallel bilateral investment treaty (BIT) claim against the Czech Republic through its Saluka subsidiary. Hearings on liability in the contract arbitration are set for November 2005.
Claimants’ Counsel: George von Mehren of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland and Lubos Tichy of Squire, Sanders in Prague
Respondents’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Peter Turner, Mitesh Kotecha, Zac Douglas and Marion Colombani of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, and Ian Taylor and Robert Fell of Freshfields in London
Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of Fribourg in Switzerland (Chair); Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris; Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels
IDT Corporation (U.S.) v. Telefónica S.A. (Spain)
AAA, New York
Stakes: $7,650,000,000
IDT claimed that Telefónica backed out of a 2000 memorandum of understanding concerning Telefónica’s Latin American undersea cable network. Telefónica, maintaining that an agreement was never reached, made a $4.5 billion counterclaim. The panel enforced the memorandum of understanding and rejected the counterclaim, but declined to award IDT lost profits. It rendered a $21.3 million award in IDT’s favor, and Telefónica made full payment in December 2003.
Claimants’ Counsel: David Rivkin and Robert Shwartz of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York
Respondents’ Counsel: Kevin Walsh of Winston & Strawn in New York
Arbitrators: John Wilkinson of Fulton, Rowe, Hart & Coon in New York (Chair); Mark Kantor (Retired) of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in Washington, D.C.; David Kay of Gardner, Carton & Douglas in Chicago
German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing v. Toll Collect Consortium (comprising DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes S.A., and Deutsche Telekom AG)
Ad hoc, Berlin
Stakes: $6,000,000,000
The Toll Collect Consortium undertook to build a toll highway for trucks in a project financed through a public-private partnership (PPP). Germany seeks to hold the consortium and its members liable for the costs of delaying the road’s opening from September 2003 to January 2005, which it estimates at €4.6 billion (about $6 billion). Arbitrators have been appointed.
Claimants’ Counsel: Klaus Günther of Linklaters Oppenhoff & Rädler in Cologne and Kai Pritzsche of Linklaters Oppenhoff in Berlin; Dirk-Reiner Martens and Holger Peters of Beiten Burkhardt in Munich
Respondents’ Counsel: Georg Thoma and Rainer Wilke of Shearman & Sterling in Düsseldorf; Peter Heckel of Hengeler Mueller in Frankfurt and Henning Bälz in Berlin
Arbitrators: Günther Hirsch of the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe (Chair); Horst Eidenmüller of Munich University; Claus-Wilhelm Canaris of Munich University
Rumeli Telefon Sistemleri AS (Turkey) v. Motorola Credit Corporation (U.S.)
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $2,000,000,000
Telecommunications companies controlled by Turkey’s Uzan family failed to repay over $1.8 billion in loans extended by Motorola under a vendor financing arrangement. Rumeli contends that it was excused by the Turkish financial crisis and the intervention of the Turkish state. Final award pending.
Claimants’ Counsel: Christian Schmid and Reto Arpagaus of Bratschi Emch & Partner in Zurich
Respondents’ Counsel: Peter Straub and Marc Veit of Pestalozzi Lachenal Patry in Zurich; Steven Davidson and Howard Stahl of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Daniel Wehrli of Gloor & Sieger in Zurich (Chair); Niklaus Mueller of Hartmann Mueller Partner in Zurich; Marc Blessing of Bär & Karrer in Zurich
Telsim Mobil Telekomünikasyon Hizmetleri AS (Turkey) v. Motorola Credit Corporation (U.S.)
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $2,000,000,000
Another dispute stemming from the failure of telecom companies controlled by Turkey’s Uzan family to repay more than $1.8 billion in loans extended by Motorola under a vendor financing arrangement. Telsim contends that it was excused by the Turkish financial crisis and the intervention of the Turkish state. Motorola won an initial award of $85 million in January 2004. Final award pending.
Claimants’ Counsel: Christian Schmid and Reto Arpagaus of Bratschi Emch & Partner in Zurich
Respondents’ Counsel: Peter Straub and Marc Veit of Pestalozzi Lachenal Patry in Zurich; Steven Davidson and Howard Stahl of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Daniel Wehrli of Gloor & Sieger in Zurich (Chair); Hans Rudolf Steiner of Walder Wyss & Partner in Zurich; Marc Blessing of Bär & Karrer in Zurich
Vivendi Universal S.A. (France) and Vivendi Telecom International S.A. (France) v. Elektrim S.A. (Poland)
LCIA, London
Stakes: $2,000,000,000
Battle between Elektrim and Vivendi Universal SA for control of their joint venture, Electrimtelecommunicaja SA, which controls Central Europe’s largest mobile phone operator, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa Sp. z o.o. Case is at the procedural stage.
Claimants’ Counsel: Sarah François-Poncet of Salans in Paris, Dariusz Oleszczuk of Salans in Warsaw, and Jeffrey Elton of Salans in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Stanislaw Soltysinski and Marcin Olechowski of Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak in Warsaw
Arbitrators: Wolfgang Peter of Python Schifferli Peter & Associés in Geneva (Chair); Alan Redfern of One Essex Court in London; Jerzy Rajski of Warsaw
Gruppo Banca Intesa (Luxembourg) v. Slovakia
ICC, Vienna
Stakes: $1,900,000,000
Intesa bought the Slovakian bank Vseobecna Uverova Banka in a 2001 privatization sale. Intesa complained in November 2003 that Slovakia failed to disclose that it had given the bank state aid, which the E.U. might force it to disgorge in the future. Settled in November 2004, when the E.U. commission provided comfort that Intesa would not be forced to disgorge any state aid.
Claimants’ Counsel: Stephen Jagusch of Allen & Overy in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Allan Bohm of Bohm and Partners in Bratislava
Arbitrators: Gunther Frosch of Petsch, Frosch & Klein in Vienna; Peter Draxler of Draxler & Partner in Vienna; Jozef Maly of Detvai Ludik Maly in Bratislava
Electricité de France (France) v. Capitalia S.p.A. (Italy), Banca Intesa S.p.A (Italy), IMI Investimenti S.p.A (Italy)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $1,600,000,000
France’s EDF entered into a series of put and call option agreements with shareholders of Italy’s Edison S.p.A., including the three respondent banks. EDF is trying to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy has passed legislation (in violation of E.U. law) blocking it from reaping the benefit of its purchases and controlling Edison. Request for arbitration filed in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Philippe Pinsolle and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents’ Counsel: Francesco Carbonetti of Studio Legale Carbonetti in Rome
Arbitrators: Laurent Levy in Geneva (Chair); Klaus Sachs of CMS Hasche Sigle Eschenlohr Peltzer Schäfer in Munich; Pietro Trimarchi in Milan
Elf Aquitaine S.A. v. Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A.
NAI, The Hague
Stakes: $1,500,000,000
Dispute between principal shareholders of the Spanish oil company Compañía Española De Petróleos, S.A. (CEPSA). Banco Santander and Elf Aquitaine (now part of Total S.A.) are fighting over the terms for unwinding their past cooperation. Contending that a July 2003 Spanish law voided CEPSA’s shareholder agreements, Santander acquired a €1 billion stake (12.6 percent of CEPSA) through a tender offer. In a November 2004 interim proceeding, Elf obtained an award freezing shares that Santander obtained pursuant to the tender offer. In the arbitration on the merits, Elf is requesting that the shares be returned to the market.
Claimants’ Counsel: Eric Schwartz and Elie Kleiman of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, and Vicente Sierra of Freshfields in Madrid
Respondents’ Counsel: Jesús Remón Peñalver, Salvador Sánchez-Terán and Cándido Paz-Ares of Uría & Menéndez in Spain; Juan Fernandez Armesto of Madrid; Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris
Arbitrators: Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez of SAI Abogados in Mexico City (Chair); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver; Horacio Grigera Naon of Washington, D.C.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Nederlandse Aardoliemaatschappij (NAM) B.V. (Netherlands)
NAI, The Hague
Stakes: $1,500,000,000
NAM, the Dutch joint venture of Exxon Mobil Corporation and The Royal Dutch Shell Group, had won €2.35 billion in 1999 in an arbitration against the German Exxon/Shell joint venture, Brigitta, regarding the allocation of North Sea natural gas revenue. The Netherlands filed this arbitration to claim its share of the gas revenue under a production sharing agreement. The panel awarded the Netherlands €377 million on January 17, 2005. The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs says disputes concerning the award are still pending between NAM and the Netherlands.
Claimants’ Counsel: Bert-Jan Houtzagers of Pels Rijcken in The Hague
Respondents’ Counsel: Marnix Leijten of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek in The Hague; Tom de Waard of Clifford Chance in Amsterdam
Arbitrators: Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London; Theo Raaijmakers of Tilburg University in the Netherlands; Sjoerd Royer, former president of the Netherlands Supreme Court
Conproca, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), a joint venture of SK Engineering and Construction (Korea) and Siemens AG (Germany) v. Petróleos Mexicanos
ICC, Mexico City
Stakes: $1,400,000,000
Conproca, a joint venture between Germany’s Siemens AG and Korea’s SK Engineering and Construction, claims that Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, delayed, disrupted, and made variations on orders to upgrade an oil refinery in Cadereyta, Mexico. Pemex has made counterclaims for defective work. The case has been bifurcated into liability and damages phases, with the liability phase spread over three hearings scheduled to take place in 2006 and 2007.
Claimants’ Counsel: Cyrus Benson III and Ellis Baker of White & Case in London; Fernando del Castillo Elorza of Santamarina y Steta in Mexico City
Respondents’ Counsel: Luis Enrique Graham Tapia of Jauregui, Navarrete, Nader y Rojas in Mexico City
Arbitrators: Juan Pablo Cardenas Mejia of CyV Abogados, Ltda. in Bogota (Chair); Bernardo Cremades of Cremades y Associados in Madrid; Alejandro Ogarrio Ramirez Espana of Ogarrio Daguerre, S.C. in Mexico City
Electricité de France (France) v. Fiat S.p.A (Italy)
LCIA, Geneva
Stakes: $1,400,000,000
Another dispute arising from the put and call option agreements that France’s EDF signed with shareholders of Italy’s Edison S.p.A. This one revolves around EDF’s two agreements with Fiat, in the amounts of €800 million (about $1 billion) and €1.114 billion (about $1.4 billion). EDF is trying to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy has passed legislation (in violation of E.U. law) blocking it from reaping the benefit of its purchases and controlling Edison. Request for arbitration filed in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Pierre-Yves Gunter and Wolfgang Peter of Python Schifferli Peter & Associés in Geneva
Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Greig of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris
Arbitrators: Peter Leaver of London (Sole Arbitrator)
Ceskoslovenská obchodní banka, A.S. (Czech Republic) v. The Slovak Republic
ICSID, Washington, D.C., London, Prague
Stakes: $1,300,000,000
CSOB, formerly a state-owned bank, claimed that the Slovak Republic is responsible for alleged losses in connection with its restructuring following the "Velvet Divorce" between the Czech and Slovak Republics. On December 29, 2004, the arbitral tribunal awarded CSOB about $867 million, plus $10 million in legal fees. Slovakia agreed in February to pay the full amount.
Claimants’ Counsel: Charles Brower, Abby Cohen Smutny, Francis Vasquez, Jr., Anne Smith of White & Case in Washington, D.C. and Monika Rutland of White & Case in Prague
Respondents’ Counsel: Henry Weisburg of Shearman & Sterling in New York and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Arbitrators: Hans van Houtte of Belgium (President); Piero Bernardini of Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Andreas Bucher of Switzerland
PT Ariawest International (Indonesia) v. Perusahaan Perseroan PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia TBK (Indonesia)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $1,300,000,000
Dispute arising out of the Indonesian currency crisis, based on a joint operating agreement between Ariawest, a vehicle for foreign investors, and Indonesia’s state phone company, Telkom, to build and operate a fixed-line phone system in West Java. Settled in July 2003 as part of a buyout of Ariawest and an assumption of debt by Telkom totaling $454,500,000.
Claimants’ Counsel: Kim Rooney of White & Case in Hong Kong and Stephen Bond of White & Case in Paris
Respondents’ Counsel: Dana Freyer and Angela Garcia of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York
Arbitrators: Allan Philip of Philip & Partners in Copenhagen (Chairman); L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
T-Mobile International (Germany) v. Elektrim SA, Elektrimtelecommunicaja SA (Poland)
Vienna International Arbitral Centre, Vienna
Stakes: $1,300,000,000
Battle for control of Central Europe’s largest mobile phone operator, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa Sp. z o.o. In August 1999, Elektrim purported to buy 51 percent of PTC. Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile subsidiary disputed the validity of Elektrim’s purchase, claiming that it had a right of first refusal. The panel rejected this claim in August 2003. In a second arbitration heard by the same panel, T-Mobile argued that the transfer of Elektrim’s shares into a joint venture with Vivendi Universal S.A. violated PTC’s corporate charter. In December 2004 the panel found that it lacked jurisdiction.
Claimants’ Counsel: Gary Born of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in London; formerly Judith Gill of Allen & Overy in London
Respondents’ Counsel: David Kavanagh of Watson, Farley & Williams in London; Toby Landau of Essex Court Chambers in London; Stanislaw Soltysinski of Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak in Warsaw
Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris (Chair); Jerzy Rajski of Warsaw; Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva
Bridas SAPIC (Argentina) v. Government of Turkmenistan
ICC, Houston
Stakes: $1,230,000,000
Bridas, an Argentine energy company, claimed that the state energy company Turkmenneft wrongfully terminated their joint venture in the Keimir area of southwestern Turkmenistan. In January 2001 the panel awarded Bridas $495 million in damages against Turkmenistan. But arbitral jurisdiction has been successfully challenged in the U.S. courts. In September 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Turkmenistan was not a party to the joint venture, and Turkmenneft was not a state agent. On remand, the U.S. district court for the Southern District of Texas found that the state was not Turkmenneft’s alter ego. That ruling is on appeal.
Claimants’ Counsel: Sergio Le Pera of Le Pera & Lessa in Buenos Aires; Mary O’Connor of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Dallas
Respondents’ Counsel: William Knull III of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in Houston; Ali Malek of 3 Verulam Buildings in London
Arbitrators: Edward Chiasson of Borden Ladner Gervais in Vancouver (Chair); Griffin Bell of King & Spalding in Atlanta; Hans Smit of Columbia University
Telsim Mobil Telekomünikasyon Hizmetleri AS (Turkey) v. Motorola Ltd. (U.K.)
ICC, Zurich
Stakes: $1,156,000,000
Another dispute arising from the put and call option agreements that France’s EDF signed with shareholders of Italy’s Edison S.p.A., including Carlo Tassara. EDF is trying to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy has passed legislation (in violation of E.U. law) blocking it from reaping the benefit of its purchases and controlling Edison. Request for arbitration filed in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Thomas Müller, Gabrielle Nater-Bass and David Rosenthal of Homburger in Zurich
Respondents’ Counsel: Peter Straub and Marc Veit of Pestalozzi Lachenal Patry in Zurich; Steven Davidson of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C., and Thomas Sprange of Steptoe & Johnson in London
Arbitrators: Christoph Liebscher of Wolf Theiss & Partners in Vienna (Chair); Roberto Dallafior of Hess Dallafior in Zurich; Toby Landau of Essex Court Chambers in London
Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. (Japan) v. Fortress Re, Inc. (U.S.)
Ad hoc, New York
Stakes: $1,119,000,000
Fortress Re reinsured much of the world’s aviation insurance from 1996 through 2001. Using a technique known as "finite reinsurance," Fortress Re improved its balance sheet without transferring risk; it then found itself unable to cover $3 billion in losses claimed by Japanese insurers, including Sompo. In December 2003 Sompo won an arbitration judgment of $1.12 billion against Fortress Re–including $100 million in attorneys’ fees and punitive damages for willful misconduct. In March 2004 the award was confirmed by a federal district judge in Greensboro, North Carolina. In July 2004 Sompo forced Fortress’s principals, Maurice Sabah and Kenneth Kornfeld, to disgorge more than $400 million in assets. In January 2005 Japanese insurers reached a confidential settlement with Greensboro’s American Hebrew Academy, to which Sabah had donated an estimated $100 million. Sompo is seeking to recover the remainder of its losses from Fortress Re’s auditor, Deloitte & Touche, in North Carolina state court.
Claimants’ Counsel: Cliff Schoenberg, Howard Hawkins, John Finnegan, and Philip Loree of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York
Respondents’ Counsel: Jack Gordon of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Paul Dassenko of Converium Reinsurance Inc. in New York (Chair); Caleb Fowler in Westover; Andrew Maneval of Horizon Management Group in Boston
Electricité de France (France) v. Carlo Tassara Finanziaria S.p.A (Italy)
GCC, Geneva
Stakes: $1,050,000,000
Another dispute arising from the put and call option agreements that France’s EDF signed with shareholders of Italy’s Edison S.p.A., including Carlo Tassara. EDF is trying to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy has passed legislation (in violation of E.U. law) blocking it from reaping the benefit of its purchases and controlling Edison. Request for arbitration filed in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Philippe Pinsolle and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents’ Counsel: Franco Bonelli of Bonelli e Associate in Milan
Arbitrators: Charles Poncet of Ziegler Poncet & Grumbach in Geneva
ChevronTexaco Corp. (U.S.) v. Petroecuador and the Republic of Ecuador
AAA, New York
Stakes: $1,000,000,000
ChevronTexaco has filed an arbitration asking Ecuador and its state oil firm, Petroecuador, to cover legal fees and any judgment emerging from a suit brought by Ecuadoran tribespeople against ChevronTexaco in an Ecuadoran trial court, for environmental damage to the Amazon basin. A lawyer for the tribespeople has estimated the stakes in the underlying suit at $1 billion, but ChevronTexaco maintains that the stakes are much lower. Respondents are arguing in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York that the arbitrators lack jurisdiction.
Claimants’ Counsel: Thomas Cullen of Jones Day in Washington, D.C.; Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston
Respondents’ Counsel: Terry Collingsworth of the International Labor Rights Fund in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; John Fellas of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in New York; William Baker of Ropes & Gray in Boston
Electricité de France (France) v. Fiat S.p.A (Italy)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $1,000,000,000
Another dispute arising from the two put and call option agreements, in the amounts of €800 million (about $1 billion) and €1.114 billion (about $1.4 billion), that France’s EDF signed with Fiat, one of the shareholders of Italy’s Edison S.p.A. EDF is trying to escape these agreements, alleging that Italy has passed legislation (in violation of E.U. law) blocking it from reaping the benefit of its purchases and controlling Edison. Request for arbitration filed in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Pierre-Yves Gunter and Wolfgang Peter of Python Schifferli Peter & Associés in Geneva
Respondents’ Counsel: Franzo Grande Stevens of Grande Stevens Studio Legale in Torino
Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (Chair); Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; François Perret of Geneva
Philippine International Air Terminal Co, Inc. [PIATCO] (Philippines) v. Republic of the Philippines
ICC, Singapore
Stakes: $1,000,000,000
The PIATCO consortium won a concession to build and operate a new terminal at Manila’s Aquino International Airport. The Supreme Court of the Philippines voided the contract in May 2003, citing administrative irregularities. Claimant says it was stripped of its investment because a new government came into power. Each side accuses the other of corruption, while denying any wrongdoing on its own part. The main foreign investor in the consortium, Fraport AG, is pursuing a parallel BIT arbitration. Briefing on all issues is under way.
Claimants’ Counsel: Eduardo de los Angeles and Manuel Cosico of Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & de los Angeles in Manila; Michael Kuah and Adeline Foo of Lee & Lee in Singapore
Respondents’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm, Abby Cohen Smutny of White & Case in Washington, D.C., Stephen Bond of White & Case in Paris and Kim Rooney of White & Case in Hong Kong; Justice Florentino Feliciano in Manila
Arbitrators: Michael Pryles of 20 Essex Street in London (Chair); Justice Florenz Regalado; Justice Bernardo Pardo
Tilts Communications A/S (Denmark), Sonera OYJ (Finland), Cable & Wireless plc (U.K.) v. Republic of Latvia (Latvia), Lattelekom SIA (Latvia)
ICC, Stockholm
Stakes: $1,000,000,000
In 1994 the Republic of Latvia sold a 49 percent stake in its national fixed line telephone company, Lattelekom, to Tilts, which began as a joint venture between Britain’s Cable and Wireless plc and Finland’s TeliaSonera AB. Under the sale agreement, Latvia agreed that Lattelekom would remain a monopoly for 20 years. In August 2000 Tilts claimed that Latvia had prematurely ended Lattelekom’s monopoly in order to win entry into the E.U. and the WTO. Latvia responded that Tilts failed to upgrade the phone network. Settled on undislosed terms in March 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Greg Reid and Stuart Dutson of Linklaters in London; Richard Bamforth and Cyrus Benson III of White & Case in London and Paul Friedland of White & Case in New York
Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Lambert of Clifford Chance in London
Arbitrators: Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler of Karlsruhe (Chair); Bertil Södermark of Advokatfirman Södermark in Stockholm; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris
Bombardier Inc. (Canada), Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) Germany GmbH (Germany) v. DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $960,000,000
A postacquisition accounting dispute over the sale price of DaimlerChrysler Rail Systems GmbH to Bombardier in 2001. In September 2004 Daimler agreed in a settlement to adjust the purchase price in Bombardier’s favor by $170 million.
Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Heckel of Hengeler Mueller in Frankfurt and Cord-Georg Hasselmann in Berlin; Pierre Bienvenu of Ogilvy Renault in Montréal
Respondents’ Counsel: Georg Thoma of Shearman & Sterling in Düsseldorf, Richard Kreindler of Shearman & Sterling in Frankfurt, and Heino Rück of Shearman & Sterling in Mannheim
Arbitrators: Markus Wirth of Homburger in Zurich (Chair); Klaus Jürgen Hopt in Hamburg; Hans-Joachim Mertens in Königstein
Globe Nuclear Services and Supply (GNSS) Limited (U.S.) v. AO Techsnabexport ("Tenex") (Russia)
SCC, Stockholm
Stakes: $940,000,000
Globe Nuclear seeks to enforce a contract to buy depleted uranium from the respondent, Tenex. Tenex says the contract is overridden by a 1993 U.S.—Russia treaty under which Russia has delegated to Tenex the task of transforming nuclear warheads into civil energy. Evidentiary hearing scheduled for spring 2005.
Claimants’ Counsel: Matthew Adler and Andrew Fletcher of Pepper Hamilton in Pittsburgh; Kaj Hober of Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyra in Sweden
Respondents’ Counsel: Ivan Marisin, Timur Aitkulov of Clifford Chance in Moscow and Jason Fry and Peter Rosher of Clifford Chance in Paris; Sigvard Jarvin and Carroll Dorgan of Jones Day in Paris
Arbitrators: Gustaf Möller in Helsinki (Chair); Professor Sergei Lebedev in Moscow; Advokat Karl-Eric Danielsson in Stockholm
Society of Lloyds (London) v. Swiss Reinsurance Company (Switzerland), XL Capital Ltd. (Bermuda), The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (U.S.), The Chubb Corporation (U.S.), Hannover Ruckversicherung (Germany), GE Employers Reinsurance Corporation (U.S.)
Ad hoc, London
Stakes: $900,000,000
Six reinsurers sought to avoid paying out after September 11, 2001 on policies that Lloyd’s had obtained to cover losses by its central fund, which amounted to £480 million (about $900 million). In January 2005 the panel gave a partial award in favor of Swiss Re because Lloyd’s had not disclosed all the circumstances that might trigger the policy. Before the panel could rule for the other claimants, Lloyd’s settled on March 14 for £152 million (about $287 million).
Claimants’ Counsel: Geoff Nicholas, Ali Sallaway, Jonathan Sutcliffe, and Liz Snodgrass of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London
Respondents’ Counsel: John Hall of CMS Cameron McKenna in London
Arbitrators: Will not disclose
UEG Araucária Ltda. v. Companhia Paranaense de Energia (Brazil) and Copel Geraçao S.A. (Brazil)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $830,000,000
UEGA, backed by investors from North America and Brazil, was awarded a contract to build and operate a gas-fired power plant by COPEL, a Brazilian public utility. Following alleged interference by the Brazilian state of Paraná, COPEL ceased payments, prompting UEGA to terminate the contract and file for arbitration. Respondents have asked domestic courts to enjoin the arbitration. The arbitrators accepted jurisdiction in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: C. Mark Baker and Arif Ali of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston; João Afonso de Assis and Marcio Cordeiro Filho of Xavier Bernardes Bragança in Río de Janeiro
Respondents’ Counsel: Marcelo Antonio Muriel and Marcos Chaves Ladeira of Pinheiro Neto Advogado in São Paulo
Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel of the University of Cologne, Germany (Chair); Martin Hunter, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Jorge Fontoura Nogueira of Catholic University of Brasilia in Brazil
ABN Amro Bank N.V. (Stockholm branch) v. Telsim Mobil Telekomünikaysion Hizmetleri A.S. (Turkey)
Zurich Chamber of Commerce, Zurich
Stakes: $800,000,000
Another dispute stemming from the construction of a Turkish mobile phone network. Telsim, controlled by Turkey’s Uzan family, complains that the computer systems supplied by Motorola to operate the network do not work properly. Motorola is seeking in other forums to recover on claimant’s nonpayment of over $1.8 billion in loans under a vendor financing arrangement. Final award pending.
Claimants’ Counsel: Rudolf Tschäni of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich
Respondents’ Counsel: Thomas Müller, Gabrielle Nater-Bass, and David Rosenthal of Homburger in Zurich
Arbitrators: Gaudenz Domenig of Prager Dreifuss in Zurich; Beat von Rechenberg of CMS von Erlach Klainguti Stettler Wille in Zurich; Georg von Segesser of Schellenberg Wittmer in Zurich
Chang Beverages Pte Ltd. (Thailand) v. Carlsberg Breweries A/S (Denmark)
ICC, London
Stakes: $800,000,000
Chang Beverages has filed two arbitrations in connection with Carlsberg’s summer 2003 termination of their joint venture to sell beer in Thailand. The London arbitration relates to the shareholder agreement.
Claimants’ Counsel: Norton Rose in London; One Essex Court Chambers in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Lovells in London
Arbitrators: Lord Patrick Neill of Bladen, QC, of Serle Court Chambers in London; Neil Kaplan, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Ian Glick, QC, of One Essex Court Chambers in London
Chang Beverages Pte Ltd. (Thailand) v. Carlsberg Breweries A/S (Denmark)
Ad hoc, Bangkok
Stakes: $800,000,000
The second of two arbitrations filed by Chang Beverages in connection with Carlsberg’s summer 2003 termination of their joint venture to sell beer in Thailand. The Bangkok arbitration relates to the distribution license agreements.
Claimants’ Counsel: Norton Rose in London; Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok
Respondents’ Counsel: Watson, Farley & Williams in Bangkok; Kanung & Partners in Bangkok
Arbitrators: Will not disclose
Government of the Russian Federation v. Compagnie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation (Switzerland)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $800,000,000
The latest dispute arising out of a large loan extended to Russia in the early 1990s by Noga, a Swiss trading company. Still seeking to collect on a 2001 arbitration award of $55 million, Noga now claims that Russia agreed in July 2002 to pay it $800 million as a settlement. Russia maintains that the claim is baseless.
Claimants’ Counsel: Howard Zelbo and Boaz Morag of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York, David Sabel of Cleary Gottlieb in London, and Jean-Yves Garaud of Cleary Gottlieb in Paris
Respondents’ Counsel: Antoine Korkmaz of Robin et Korkmaz in Paris
Arbitrators: François Perret of Geneva (Chair); Nicholas Decker of Luxembourg; Olivier Echappe of Paris
IPOC International Growth Fund Limited (Bermuda) v. LV Finance Group Limited (British Virgin Islands)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $800,000,000
Dispute over a 25 percent stake in Russian mobile phone operator MegaFon, by one estimate worth $800 million. IPOC claims to have bought the stake in 2001 from LV Finance Group Limited (BVI). LV says it still owns the stake. But LV is now controlled by Mikhail Fridman’s Alfa Group, which also owns a stake in MegaFon rival VimpelCom. In this Stockholm arbitration, IPOC is suing MegaFon shareholders to affirm the Shareholder Agreement, which forbids cross-holdings in competitors. Hearing on the merits expected in 2005.
Claimants’ Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer, Ricardo Ugarte, and Franz Stirnimann of Winston & Strawn in Geneva
Respondents’ Counsel: Michael Jones (resigned) of Weil Gotshal & Manges in London; Jacques Barillon of Barillon & Bohler in Geneva
Arbitrators: Bernhard Meyer-Hauser of Zurich (Chair); Christopher Style of Linklaters in London; Professor Alexander Komarov of Moscow
IPOC International Growth Fund Limited (Bermuda) v. OOO CT-Mobile (Russia), OAO Telcominsvest (Russia), Sonera Holding B.V. (Netherlands), Telia International A.B. (Sweden), and Telia International Management AB (Sweden)
SCC, Stockholm
Stakes: $800,000,000
Another case stemming from the dispute between LV and IPOC over a 25 percent stake in Russian mobile phone operator MegaFon. In this ongoing Zurich arbitration, the parties are fighting over a bundle of shares representing about three-fourths of the one-quarter stake.
Claimants’ Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer of Winston & Strawn in Geneva; Bo GH Nilsson of Rydincarlsten Advokatbyrå AB in Stockholm
Respondents’ Counsel: Nigel Rawding of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London; William Spiegelberger of White & Case in Moscow and Claes Zettermarck of White & Case in Stockholm; Hans Bagner of Advokatfirmen Vinge in Stockholm; Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert and Sven Oswald of Latham & Watkins in Hamburg
Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris; Werner Melis of Vienna
The Eurotrain Consortium (Germany and France) v. Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation (Taiwan) on behalf of its promoters and founding shareholders, Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co., Ltd., Fubon Insurance Co., Ltd., Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan) Ltd., Continental Engineering Corp., and Teco Electric & Machinery Co., Ltd.
ICC, Singapore
Stakes: $800,000,000
Taiwan High Speed Rail allegedly reneged on its promise to buy high-speed trains from Eurotrain, a consortium comprising ALSTOM and Siemens AG. On March 5, 2004, the panel awarded Eurotrain $89 million. In late 2004 respondent agreed to a $66 million settlement.
Claimants’ Counsel: Charles Adams, Jr., and Alan Howard of Winston & Strawn in Geneva
Respondents’ Counsel: Arthur Rovine of Baker & McKenzie in New York and Remington Huang of Baker & McKenzie in Taipei
Arbitrators: W. Michael Reisman in New Haven (Chair); Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Charles Poncet of Ziegler Poncet & Grumbach in Geneva
Agrium Inc. (Canada) v. Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) (U.S.)
AAA, Houston
Stakes: $785,000,000
Agrium bought a remote Alaskan fertilizer plant from Unocal in 1998. Agrium contended that Unocal was obliged to provide it with a full supply of gas to operate the plant through 2009, and sought future damages. After a June 2004 hearing the panel awarded Agrium only ascertained damages, in the amount of $36.5 million, set off by a $5 million award in Unocal’s favor, for excess royalties paid by Unocal on gas sold to the fertilizer plant.
Claimants’ Counsel: William Knull III of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in Houston; Leslie Duncan of Duncan Camp in Calgary
Respondents’ Counsel: Eric Mayer of Susman Godfrey in Houston; Scott Pratt of Keesal Young & Logan in Long Beach
Arbitrators: Thomas Reavley (Chair); Richard Strickland of Dallas; John McCollam of New Orleans
ProMOS Technologies Inc. (Taiwan R.O.C.) v. Infineon Technologies AG (Germany)
ICC, Munich, Zurich
Stakes: $741,000,000
Dispute over the transfer and development of DRAM memory chip technology. In a settlement dated November 10, 2004, ProMOS agreed that it owed Infineon a license payment of $156 million, to be partially offset by $36 million due ProMOS for products purchased.
Claimants’ Counsel: Froriep Renggli in Zurich
Respondents’ Counsel: Felix Dasser and Werner Stieger of Homburger in Zurich
Arbitrators: Will not disclose
Alcatel Space S.A. (France) v. Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Bermuda and U.S.)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $700,000,000
A fight between collaborators in the satellite industry. Alcatel claimed that Loral violated their operational agreement by sharing information about Space Systems/Loral Inc. with Lockheed Martin Corporation. Preliminary awards sided with Alcatel on liability and rejected Loral’s counterclaims. In the second quarter of 2003, Alcatel initiated a new arbitration, concerning Loral’s collaboration with Intelsat Ltd., and persuaded a federal court to temporarily enjoin that deal. But before the new arbitration could be filed (and before damages in the first arbitration were fixed), the parties reached a confidential global settlement.
Claimants’ Counsel: George Hritz and Paul Sarkozi of Hogan & Hartson in New York
Respondents’ Counsel: Steven Reisberg of Willkie, Farr & Gallagher in New York
Arbitrators: Francois Dessemontet of the University of Lausanne (Chair); David Lawson of Byrne-Sutton Bonnard Lawson Meakin & Partners in Geneva; William Park of Boston University and Ropes & Gray in Boston
Anaconda Operations Proprietary Ltd. (Australia) v. Fluor Australia Proprietary Ltd. (Australia)
Ad hoc, Melbourne
Stakes: $700,000,000
The American engineering firm Fluor contracted to build the Murrin Murrin nickel and cobalt hydrometallurgical plant for the claimant, a joint venture of Australia’s Anaconda Nickel Ltd. (now Minara Resources) and Switzerland’s Glencore International AG (formerly Marc Rich Investments). Claimant complained that the plant never performed as promised, which respondent denied. In 2002 claimant was awarded 155 million Australian dollars (about $115 million) on its initial contract claims, set off against Fluor’s award for 107 million Australian dollars ($82 million). In May 2004, before the arbitrators could rule on the remaining contract claims, Fluor agreed to settle them for about $134 million, including legal fees.
Claimants’ Counsel: Andrew Stephenson of Clayton Utz in Melbourne
Respondents’ Counsel: Phillip Greenham of Minter Ellison in Melbourne
Arbitrators: Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris (Chair); Philip Naughton of 3 Serjeants’ Inn in London; John Uff, QC, of Keating Chambers in London
Mitsui Limited (Japan) (General Electric (USA) was real party in interest) v. Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
ICC, Bangkok
Stakes: $700,000,000
A case arising out an engineering, procurement, and construction contract for the Ratchaburi power station in Thailand. Mitsui assigned the contract to the General Electric Company, which pursued the case in arbitration. Settled on confidential terms in September 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Frederick Davis of Shearman & Sterling in New York and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore
Respondents’ Counsel: Jayavadh Bunnag of International Legal Counsellors Thailand Ltd.
Arbitrators: John Uff, QC, of Keating Chambers in London (Chair); Michael Pryles of 20 Essex Street in London; Chaikasem Nitisiri of Bangkok
Telcordia Technologies, Inc.(U.S.) v. Telkom SA Limited (South Africa)
ICC, Johannesburg
Stakes: $700,000,000
Telcordia, owned by Science Applications International Corporation, complains that South Africa’s Telkom owes it $100—200 million for software services. Telkom has counterclaimed for a botched job. In September 2002 the panel decided in Telcordia’s favor on all issues of liability, lighting the match on domestic court litigation. A South African high court judge set aside the award in November 2003, and the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa has agreed to hear the case. Enforcement actions brought by Telcordia were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by a federal court in D.C. (upheld by the D.C Circuit) and, early in 2005, by a federal court in New Jersey. An appeal to the Third Circuit is pending.
Claimants’ Counsel: Wim Trengove, SC, Dennis Fine, SC, Alistair Franklin, SC, Adv JPV MacNally, and Atty Lennard Cowan in Johannesburg; Greg Nott of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green & MacRae in Johannesburg; Allen Green and William O’Brien of McKenna Long & Aldridge in Washington, D.C.
Respondents’ Counsel: CHJ Badenhorst, SC, Bruce Leach, SC, and Rafik Bahna, SC, in Johannesburg; Desmond Williams of Werksmans in Johannesburg; Eugene Gulland and Mark Feldman of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Anthony Boswood, QC, of Fountain Court Chambers in London
Grupo Alvica (Venezuela) v. Petrolera Ameriven (Venezuela)
ICC, New York
Stakes: $690,000,000
A series of claims brought by a joint venture of Fluor Corporation and Inelectra S.A., over a contract to build the Hamaca petroleum upgrader for a consortium including Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., Chevron Texaco and ConocoPhillips. In February 2004 the claimant won a partial award of $36 million in a dispute over soil conditions. The panel has yet to decide the principal claims, arising out of the national Venezuelan oil strike of 2002—03.
Claimants’ Counsel: Louis Pepe of Pepe & Hazard in Hartford
Respondents’ Counsel: Frederick Davis of Shearman & Sterling in New York
Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau & DuMoulin in Vancouver (Chair); Michael Schneider of Lalive & Partners in Geneva; Horacio Grigera Naon of Washington, D.C.
IPOC International Growth Fund Limited (Bermuda) v. LV Finance Group Limited (British Virgin Islands)
Ad hoc, Zurich
Stakes: $600,000,000
Another case stemming from the dispute between LV and IPOC over a 25 percent stake in Russian mobile phone operator MegaFon, worth $800 million by one estimate. IPOC claims to have bought the stake in 2001 from LV, and seeks delivery of two bundles of shares. In a bizarre twist, the tribunal chair in Geneva disclosed that a private investigator had searched his trash. Both parties deny having hired the investigator. LV unsuccessfully sought to remove the chair on the theory that he might suspect LV of having hired the investigator, and be biased against it. The panel ruled in August 2004 in IPOC’s favor on a bundle of shares representing about a quarter of the one-quarter stake, and the Swiss Supreme Court denied an appeal.
Claimants’ Counsel: Nicolas Ulmer of Winston & Strawn in Geneva
Respondents’ Counsel: Michael Jones of Weil Gotshal & Manges in London
Arbitrators: Daniel Wehrli of Gloor & Sieger in Zurich; Ian Meakin of Byrne-Sutton Bonnard Lawson Meakin & Associés in Geneva; Boris Kojevnikov of Vienna
Kansas City Southern (U.S.) v. Grupo TMM, S.A. (Mexico)
AAA, New York
Stakes: $600,000,000
Grupo TMM agreed to sell KC Southern a controlling interest in TMM’s Mexican railroad subsidiary. When TMM terminated the agreement, KC Southern filed an arbitration alleging breach of contract. After an initial award in favor of KC Southern, the parties have reached a tentative settlement.
Claimants’ Counsel: Allan Van Fleet of Vinson & Elkins in Houston
Respondents’ Counsel: Michael Diamond of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York; Joseph Pizzurro of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in New York
Arbitrators: George Pratt (Chair); William Quillen; Stuart Shapiro
Karaha Bodas Company ("KBC") (Cayman Islands) v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara ("Pertamina") (Indonesia), PT PLN (Persero) (Indonesia), Government of the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia)
Ad hoc, Geneva
Stakes: $600,000,000
Indonesia terminated a geothermal power contract signed by claimant KBC with respondents Pertamina and PLN in 1997. The arbitral panel awarded KBC $261 million in December 2000. In October 2004, after years of litigation around the world, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment in KBC’s favor, ordering Bank of America to transfer to KBC approximately $300 million of Pertamina funds that have been restrained in New York since 2002. That order has been stayed pending appeal to the Second Circuit.
Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan, formerly of Jones Day, now of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C.; William Isaacson of Boies Schiller Flexner in Washington, D.C.; Michael Pilkington of Clyde & Co. in Hong Kong and Andrew Bicknell of Clyde & Co. in Singapore; J. Ferd Convery of Reed Smith in Princeton
Respondents’ Counsel: For Pertamina: Matthew Slater of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Washington, D.C.; For Indonesia: Carolyn Lamm of White & Case in Washington, D.C.
Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris (Chair); Piero Bernardini of Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Ahmed El-Kosheri of Rashed & Riad in Cairo
Sonatrach (Algeria) and Sonatrading Amsterdam B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Duke Energy LNG Sales, Inc. (U.S.)
Ad hoc, London
Stakes: $600,000,000
Duke signed a contract to purchase liquefied natural gas from Sonatrach, the Algerian state energy company. Sonatrach alleges that Duke, in selling its capacity at an LNG terminal in Louisiana, breached its obligations to continue purchasing gas. Duke counterclaims for breach of shipping obligations. An award on liability was issued in July 2003. The matter is now in the damages phase. Related court proceedings continue in Texas federal district court.
Claimants’ Counsel: David Reed, Todd Wetmore, and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Respondents’ Counsel: Steven Smith of O’Melveny & Myers in San Francisco
Arbitrators: Alan Redfern of One Essex Court in London (Chair); Lord Dervaird of Scotland; Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London
The Navy of the Republic of China in Taiwan, acting through its Planning Bureau for and on behalf of itself and The Republic of China (Chinese Taipei) v. Thales S.A. (France) and Thales Naval S.A. (France)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $600,000,000
Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas stated in a March 2003 interview with the Paris newspaper Le Figaro that to secure the sale of six frigates to Taiwan for nearly $3 billion, Thales secretly paid a half-billion-dollar kickback to a middleman. While French criminal investigations continue, Taiwan is suing for recovery of that $500 million, plus $100 million for damage to its reputation. Thales denies all wrongdoing. The arbitral panel asserted jurisdiction in September 2004, and claimants are challenging this ruling in the Paris Court of Appeal.
Claimants’ Counsel: Philip Dunham and W. Laurence Craig of Coudert Frères in Paris; T.C. Huang of Huang & Partners in Taipei
Respondents’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Philippe Pinsolle, and Yas Banifatemi of Shearman & Sterling in Paris
Arbitrators: Andrea Giardina of Chiomenti Studio Legale in Rome (Chair); Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Laurent Lévy of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva
ABN AMRO Holding N.V. (The Netherlands), ANZEF Limited (U.K.), Bank of America, N.A. (U.S.), BNP Paribas (France), Citibank, N.A. (U.S.), Crédit Lyonnais SA (France), Credit Suisse First Boston (Switzerland), Erste Bank der oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG (Austria), KBC Finance Ireland (Ireland), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (U.S.), Standard Chartered Bank (U.K.) v. Industrial Development Bank of India (India), ICICI Limited (India), IFCI Limited (India), State Bank of India (India)
Ad hoc, London
Stakes: $550,000,000
Another dispute arising out of the massive but mothballed Dabhol power project in Mumbai. Claimants and respondents were all lenders to the project. The Western banks allege that, after the project encountered political interference, the Indian banks acted to frustrate the termination process, in breach of the Inter Creditor Agreement. This arbitration is at the discovery phase. Seven of the claimants have filed parallel treaty arbitrations against India. At press time settlement negotiations were ongoing.
Claimants’ Counsel: Audley Sheppard and Chris Wyman of Clifford Chance in London
Respondents’ Counsel: David Warne and Gautam Bhattacharyya of Richards Butler in London; Cyril Shroff and L. Viswanathan of Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh Shroff & Co. in Mumbai
Arbitrators: Lord Browne-Wilkinson of Serle Court in London (Chair); Alan Redfern of One Essex Court in London; Chief Justice SP Bharucha (Retired) of Mumbai
Allseas Group SA (Switzerland) v. Sembawang Shipyard Pte Ltd. (Singapore)
London Maritime Arbitrators Association, London
Stakes: $510,000,000
The European marine group Allseas hired the Singapore shipbuilder Sembawang to convert a bulk carrier into a one-of-a-kind ship called The Solitaire, a vessel that can lay underwater pipes at a depth of two kilometers. Unhappy with Sembawang’s work, Allseas gave the job to another shipyard to finish, and initiated this arbitration. Since the claim was filed in January 1996, the panel has held Allseas was entitled to terminate the contract, and issued nine interim awards, most of which have been appealed in the U.K. courts. Hearings were held in 2004 to quantify the claim, and an award is pending. The counterclaim was settled on a confidential basis on March 14, 2005, in advance of hearings.
Claimants’ Counsel: Philip Chong of Denton Wilde Sapte in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Helen Graham and Peter Martyr of Norton Rose in London
Arbitrators: John Tackaberry of Arbitration Chambers in London (Chair); Kenneth Chapman, naval architect; Bruce Harris of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association
Hutchison 3G Italia SpA (Italy), Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited (Hong Kong) v. Cirtel International S.A. (Luxembourg)
ICC, Paris
Stakes: $500,000,000
Dispute over Cirtel’s obligations as a shareholder of Hutchison 3G Italia, which was formed to exploit a third-generation mobile phone license in Italy. The November 2004 award, while affirming Cirtel’s continuing obligation to fund H3G Italia, found that Cirtel was entitled to repayment of a loan of €373 million (about $500 million). Both parties declared victory. Hutchison Whampoa paid Cirtel €470 million in December to settle the dispute and acquire Cirtel’s stake in H3G.
Claimants’ Counsel: Eric Schwartz and Constantine Partasides of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Fabrizio Arosso of Freshfields in Rome
Respondents’ Counsel: Sergio Erede and Paolo Daino of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan; Iain Milligan of 20 Essex Street in London
Arbitrators: André Faurès of Coudert Brothers in Brussels (Chair); Axel Baum of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in Paris; Pietro Trimarchi in Milan
Siemens AG (Germany) v. First Gas Power Corporation (U.K.)
ICC, London
Stakes: $500,000,000
Siemens contracted to build a combined-cycle gas power plant in the Philippines for First Gas. Completion of the project was delayed, and First Gas withheld nearly $100 million in payments. Siemens contends that First Gas has no remedy for the delays and seeks repayment of the $100 million, while asserting a variety of other claims. The case is to be heard in two phases in 2005.
Claimants’ Counsel: Norton Rose in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Pinsent Masons in London
Arbitrators: Kenneth Rokison, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London (Chair); John Uff, QC, of Keating Chambers in London; Robert Akenhead, QC, of Atkin Chambers in London
World Duty Free Company Limited (Isle of Man, United Kingdom) v. The Republic of Kenya (Kenya)
ICSID, Washington, D.C.; The Hague
Stakes: $500,000,000
World Duty Free complains that Kenya terminated its contract to modernize two airports. Claimant has admitted that it made a cash payment to Kenya’s ex-president, and Kenya has moved that the case be dismissed because the contract was illegal.
Claimants’ Counsel: Geoffrey Robertson, QC, of Doughty Street Chambers in London; Paul Muite SC in Nairobi
Respondents’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Constantine Partasides, and Mitesh Kotecha of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris
Arbitrators: Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice (President); Hon Andrew Rogers, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London
Artal Netherlands BV (Netherlands) et al v. Aventis CropScience GmbH (Germany)
NAI, Rotterdam
Stakes: $439,000,000
A dispute arising out of cross-border M&A. The predecessor of Aventis CropScience had acquired a Belgian biotech firm called Plant Genetic Systems NV in 1996. Claimants, the former shareholders of Plant Genetic Systems, contended there was "bid-rigging" in the auction process. The panel dismissed all claims in May 2003 and ordered the claimants to pay respondents more than $2 million for fees and expenses.
Claimants’ Counsel: John Kerr, Jr., of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York; Otto de Witt Wijnen of the Netherlands
Respondents’ Counsel: Barry Garfinkel and Marco Schnabl of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York; formerly Peter Wakkie of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek in Amsterdam
Arbitrators: Robert Meijer of Houthoff Buruma in The Hague; A.G. Jacobs of Rotterdam; S.C.J.J. Kortmann of the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands
AK Capital (USA), NHB Inc. (Korea), DASCO Inc. (Korea) v. Hanbo Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Korea), Seok-Hwan Na (Korea)
ICC, Hong Kong
Stakes: $400,000,000
A dispute arising out of the failed attempt by AK Capital LLC, NHB Inc., and DASCO Inc. to acquire a $770 million state-of-the-art steel mill from Hanbo (formerly one of Korea’s largest steel companies). The case is in the discovery phase.
Claimants’ Counsel: John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore; Kevin Kim of Bae of Kim & Lee of Seoul
Respondents’ Counsel: David Rivkin of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York; Seung Soon Choi of Yoon & Yang in Seoul
Arbitrators: Pierre Karrer of Zurich and Littleton Chambers in London (Chair); Neil Kaplan, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Michael Hwang, SC of Singapore
GTE Corporation (U.S.) v. XL Capital Ltd. (Bermuda)
Ad hoc, London
Stakes: $400,000,000
GTE argued that five years of capital expenditures to prepare for the Y2K computer virus should qualify as minimizing an imminent loss, and be covered by insurance. In July 2004 the panel ruled against GTE (now part of Verizon Communications), and dismissed the claim.
Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Ruyak of Howrey Simon Arnold & White in Washington, D.C.
Respondents’ Counsel: Nigel Rawding and Beverley Newbold of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London; Kenneth Erickson of Ropes & Gray in Boston
Arbitrators: Sir Anthony Evans, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); Robert Kaufman of Proskauer Rose in New York; Nicholas Legh-Jones, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London
Alucoal Holdings Limited (Cyprus) v. Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant ("NKAZ") (Russia)
The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm
Stakes: $360,000,000
Part of a series of arbitrations between Russian oligarch groups for control of the Russian aluminum industry ["The Russian Aluminum Wars," Focus Europe, Summer 2003]. On June 15, 2004, the Stockholm tribunal held in a final award that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Claimant has challenged the award in the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm.
Claimants’ Counsel: Christer Söderlund of Vinge in Stockholm
Respondents’ Counsel: Bengt Åke Johnsson of White & Case in Stockholm
Arbitrators: Allan Philip of Philip & Partners in Copenhagen (Chair); Jan Ramberg of Stockholm; David St. John Sutton of 20 Essex Street in London
The International Investor K.C.S.C. (Kuwait) v. Sheikh Saleh Abdullah Kamel (Saudi Arabia), Dallah Al Baraka Holding Company E.C. (Bahrain)
ICC, London
Stakes: $337,000,000
International Investor sued under a contract relating to its failed acquisition of the Dallah al Baraka bank group. Settled; awaiting consent award.
Claimants’ Counsel: Richard Smith of Allen & Overy in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Kearns & Co in Swansea, Wales
Arbitrators: Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels (Chair); Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, of 3/4 South Square in London; Samir Salem of London
SARAS SpA Raffinerie Sarde (Italy) v. Enron Dutch Holdings BV (The Netherlands)
ICC, Geneva
Stakes: $325,000,000
Enron and Saras formed a joint venture to operate the Sarlux project in Sardinia, Europe’s second largest combined-cycle gas power plant. Saras claims that, under the shareholder agreement’s change-in-control clause, it is entitled to buy respondent’s share of the venture at book value, which it places at €60 million. Respondent disputes that there has been a change in control, and cites valuations of the venture that range from €188 million to €320 million. The maximal difference in valuation is €260 million (or about $325 million).
Claimants’ Counsel: Piero Bernardini of Ughi e Nunziante in Rome; Paul Mitchard and James Hope of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Roberto Casati and William McGurn III of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Milan; Alberto Nanni of Allen & Overy in Milan
Arbitrators: Riccardo Luzzatto (Chair); Guido Rossi; Edoardo Ricci
Alliant Energy Holdings do Brasil Ltda. (Brazil) v. Itacatu S.A., Gipar S.A., Companhia Força e Luz Cataguazes-Leopoldina (CFLCL) (Brazil)
ICC, Rio de Janeiro
Stakes: At least $300,000,000
Alliant, a U.S. shareholder in a Brazilian electricity distribution company, has filed an arbitration against the company and two of its Brazilian shareholders. Alliant claims that a shareholder resolution on capital reduction and dividend distribution breached the shareholders’ agreement. On November 2, 2004, the tribunal issued a preliminary award on jurisdiction which the respondents are seeking to annul in the Brazilian courts.
Claimants’ Counsel: Benjamin Israel and Amauri Costa of Bracewell & Patterson in Washington, D.C.
Respondents’ Counsel: Arthur Marriott, QC, of Debevoise & Plimpton in London and Donald Donovan of Debevoise in New York
Arbitrators: Yves Derains of Derains & Associés in Paris (Chairman); Carlos Henrique de Carvalho Fróes of Brazil; Luis Gastâo Paes de Barros Leâes of Brazil
Base Metal Trading S.A. (Switzerland) v. OJSC Novokuznesk Aluminium Plant (Russia)
SCC, Stockholm
Stakes: $300,000,000
The latest in a series of arbitrations between Russian oligarch groups for control of the Russian aluminum industry ["The Russian Aluminium Wars," Focus Europe, Summer 2003]. Earlier claims in Stockholm and Zurich by Base Metal and related entities have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent argues that this case should be dismissed on grounds of waiver and estoppel.
Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Gibson and Tom Sprange of Steptoe & Johnson in London; Michael Ram of Erickson Advokatfirm Lindh in Stockholm
Respondents’ Counsel: Paul Hauser of Bryan Cave in London; Bengt Åke Johnsson of White & Case in Stockholm; Nicolas Ulmer of Winston & Strawn in Geneva
Arbitrators: Karl-Erik Danielsson of Stockholm (Chair); Pierre Karrer of Zurich and Littleton Chambers in London; Friedrich Graf von Westphalen of Graf von Westphalen & Modest in Cologne
BNP Paribas (France) v. Avis Group Holdings, Inc. (U.S.)
ICC, London
Stakes: $300,000,000
In April 2000 Avis sold the U.K. arm of PHH Vehicle Services, which it had acquired from Cendant Corp. a year earlier, to BNP Paribas’s Arval Fleet Management Services. The sale price was $1 billion. BNP alleges that Avis fraudulently misrepresented the value of the business, which Avis denies. Award pending.
Claimants’ Counsel: Nick Fletcher of Clifford Chance in London; Roger Stewart, QC, of Four New Square in London
Respondents’ Counsel: John Gardiner and Paul Mitchard of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London
Arbitrators: Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau & DuMoulin in Vancouver (Chair); Bernard Hanotiau of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institution
Cairn Energy India Pty Limited (Australia), Ravva Oil Singapore Pte Limited (Singapore) v. Government of India
Permanent Court of Arbitration (as registry and administrative agency); UNCITRAL rules, Kuala Lumpur, hearings in The Hague
Stakes: At least $300,000,000
Dispute brought against India by joint venture partners Cairn Energy and Ravva Oil over the allocation of revenue from the Ravva oil field in Andhra Pradesh under an oil production sharing contract. According to Cairn Energy, it won on the principal issue in dispute in a partial award of October 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Stephen York of Vinson & Elkins in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Sasi Prabhu of R.S. Prabhu & Co. in New Delhi
Arbitrators: Ahmed El-Kosheri of Rashed & Riad in Cairo (Chair); M.J. Clarke QC, of Australia; G.T. Nanavati of India
Cemex Asia Holdings Ltd (Singaporean subsidiary of Cemex SA de CV (Mexico)) ("Cemex") v. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Indonesia
ICSID, Singapore
Stakes: $300,000,000
Cemex bought part of Indonesia’s state-owned cement company, Semen Gresik, in a 1998 privatization. After experiencing management problems in Semen Gresik’s regional subsidiaries, Cemex seeks the return of its investment or damages for breach of the Conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement. Cemex also complains that Indonesia violated its obligations to protect foreign investors under a 1987 treaty signed by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Respondent is challenging jurisdiction.
Claimants’ Counsel: Barry Garfinkel, Marco Schnabl, Tim Nelson and David Herlihy of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York
Respondents’ Counsel: Paul Friedland of White & Case in New York, Kim Rooney in of White & Case in Hong Kong, and Carolyn Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutny in of White & Case in Washington, D.C.
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 I in Paris
FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited (Bermuda) v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (India)
ICC, Pending determination
Stakes: At least $300,000,000
FLAG, the owner and operator of a fiber-optic cable system stretching from England to the Far East, claims that VSNL committed breaches of contract by refusing to permit cable upgrades and other restrictions in capacity at its Mumbai Landing Station, thereby preventing access to the burgeoning Indian domestic telecoms market. The arbitration began in December 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Stephen York of Vinson & Elkins in London, Alden Atkins of Vinson & Elkins in Washington, D.C. and James Loftis of Vinson & Elkins in Houston
Respondents’ Counsel: Laurence Shore and Matthew Weiniger of Herbert Smith in London
Arbitrators: To be determined
Fluor Limited (U.K.), acting as agent for Citylink Telecommunications Limited (U.K.) v. London Underground Limited (U.K.)
Ad hoc, with the London Court of International Arbitration as appointing authority., London.
Stakes: At least $300,000,000
Fluor has undertaken to replace the communications system for the entire London subway system. Fluor complains that London Underground Limited has delayed and disrupted its task (and its subcontractors’ tasks) by failing to perform enabling works, as required by contract. Fluor filed its notice of arbitration in February 2005.
Claimants’ Counsel: Arthur Marriott, QC, of Debevoise & Plimpton in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Ann Levin of Herbert Smith in London
Arbitrators: To be determined
MBDA (U.K.) Ltd. v. Raytheon Company (U.S.)
AAA, Washington, D.C.
Stakes: $300,000,000
MBDA, a joint venture of Finmeccanica SpA, BAE Systems plc, and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V., has filed a claim for breach of a long-term missile contract. Raytheon claims that the contract has come to an end.
Claimants’ Counsel: Allen & Overy; Kaye Scholer
Respondents’ Counsel: Herbert Smith; Kirkland & Ellis
Arbitrators: To be determined
Techold Participações S.A. and Timepart Participações Ltda. (Brazil) v. Telecom Italia International, NV and Telecom Italia S.p.A. (Italy)
ICC, London
Stakes: At least $300,000,000
A fight over the control of Brasil Telecom Participações S.A. Claimants are seeking to restrain Telecom Italia from returning to the controlling group after agreeing in August 2002 to leave the controlling group to pursue its own commercial interests in Brazil.
Claimants’ Counsel: Arthur Marriott, QC, of Debevoise & Plimpton in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Louis Kimmelman of O’Melveny & Myers in New York
Arbitrators: André Faurès of Coudert Brothers in Brussels (Chair); Lord Irvine of Lairg, PC of London; L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal
Volta Aluminium Company Ltd. ("Valco") (Ghana) and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. ("Kaiser") (U.S.) v. Volta River Authority ("VRA") and Government of Ghana
ICC, London
Stakes: At least $300,000,000
Volta Aluminum and its majority owner, Kaiser, claimed that that they were entitled to extend a long-term contract for the supply of hydroelectric power to their aluminum smelter by Ghana’s state power company, the Volta River Authority. A settlement was reached in November 2004.
Claimants’ Counsel: Simon Stebbings of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London
Respondents’ Counsel: Arthur Marriott, QC, of Debevoise & Plimpton in London
Arbitrators: Kenneth Rokison, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London (Chairman); Charles Brower of White & Case in Washington, D.C., and 20 Essex Street in London; Samuel Assante of Accra
Zeevi Holdings Ltd (Israel) v. Bulgaria
Ad hoc, Paris
Stakes: $300,000,000
After buying the privatized Balkan Airlines Holdings Ltd., Zeevi claims that Bulgaria misrepresented the health of the company. Bulgaria argues, in a parallel arbitration, that Zeevi and Knafaim-Arkia Holdings Ltd. failed to invest what they promised and stripped the company of assets. Awaiting interim award on liability.
Claimants’ Counsel: Yaakov Neeman of Herzog, Fox & Neeman in Tel Aviv
Respondents’ Counsel: Constantine Partasides, Georgios Petrochilos, and Blanca Montejo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris
Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel of the University of Cologne (Chair); Avner Yarkoni of Israel; Silvy Chernev of Bulgaria
Latin American Infrastructure Fund X SPRL (Belgium) v. Axtel S.A. de C.V., Telinor Telefonia, S.de R.L. de C.V.(Mexico), Blackstone Capital Partners III Merchant Banking Fund, L.P.(U.S.), Blackstone Offshore Capital Partners III, L.P. (U.S.) and Blackstone Family Investment Partnership III, L.P.(U.S.)
AAA, New York
Stakes: Unquantified
A fight over control of Axtel, a Mexican telecommunications firm with 2004 revenue of about $350 million. Claimant, a special purpose investment vehicle affiliated with American International Group, seeks a majority of the shares reserved for foreign owners. It complains that transactions by the Blackstone entities that frustrated this goal were improper under Mexican law and the company’s bylaws. Arguments on jurisdiction are under way.
Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Greig and Carine Dupeyron of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York
Respondents’ Counsel: For Axtel S.A. de C.V.: Marco Schnabl and Dana Freyer of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York; For Telinor Telefonia, S. de R.L. de C.V.: Michael Kim of Kobre & Kim in New York; For Blackstone Capital Partners III Merchant Banking Fund, L.P., Blackstone Offshore Capital Partners III, L.P. and Blackstone Family Investment Partnership III, L.P.: Robert Bodian and David Barres of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovksy and Popeo in New York
Arbitrators: John Townsend of Hughes Hubbard and Reed in Washington, D.C. (Chair); Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez of Serra & Associates International in Mexico; Ernesto Canales Santos of Canales y Socios Abogados, S.C. in Mexico
|
Law.com Home
