  Law.com Home Newswire LawJobs CLE Center LawCatalog Our Sites Advertise |
| |
 |
| Arbitration Scorecard: Treaty 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. Hulley Enterprises Ltd (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation Stakes: $9,400,000,000 Generation Ukraine, Inc., complained that it was blocked by local administrative authorities from developing a Kiev office project, in violation of the U.S.—Ukraine bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Arbitrators dismissed the case on September 16, 2003, and ordered the claimant to pay $365,000 in costs and fees. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Hastings and Brendan Kilty of Barrister-at-Law in Dublin; instructed by Gerard Walsh of McKeever Rowan in Dublin Respondents’ Counsel: Andriy Alexeyev and Oleg Shevchuk of Proxen in Kyiv; Sergei Voitovich and Dmitry Grischenko of Grischenko and Partners in Kyiv Arbitrators: Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris (President); Eugen Salpius of Austria; Jürgen Voss of Germany Veteran Petroleum Trust (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation Ad hoc, Location to be determined Stakes: $4,800,000,000 Another arbitration filed by investors in the Yukos oil company, who allege that Russia has expropriated their assets in violation of the Energy Charter Treaty. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Yas Banifatemi, and Philippe Pinsolle of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Greig of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Arbitrators: At press time the chair had not yet been selected; Daniel Price of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Offshore Power Production C.V., Travamark Two B.V., EFS India-Energy B.V., Enron B.V., and Indian Power Investments B.V. (Netherlands) v. Government of India Ad hoc, London Stakes: $4,000,000,000 A BIT dispute flowing from the massive but mothballed Dabhol power project, built in Mumbai by General Electric Company, Bechtel Group, Inc., and Enron Corp. GE and Bechtel purchased Enron’s stake in early 2003. After their contract arbitration bogged down in domestic court challenges by the Indian respondents, GE and Bechtel filed this BIT claim against India in the name of Enron’s Netherlands affiliates. The amount in dispute corresponds to Enron’s majority share of the project. 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 Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Som Mandal of Fox Mandal & Co. in New Delhi Arbitrators: To date, no chairman has been appointed; Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Lord Cooke of Thorndon of New Zealand France Telecom Group (France) v. Republic of Lebanon Ad hoc, Geneva Stakes: $2,900,000,000 A BIT dispute 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 on February 22, 2005. Lebanon has filed an application to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court to set aside the award. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Turner, Reza Mohtashami, and Yasmin Mohammad of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Antoine Korkmaz of Robin et Korkmaz in Paris 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 (Italy) v. The United Arab Emirates ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $2,500,000,000 Soufraki, who contracted to operate a port in Dubai, complained 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 novel theory that the claimant lost his Italian citizenship when he obtained Canadian citizenship. Claimants’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Jagusch of Allen & Overy in London and Simon Roderick of Allen & Overy in Dubai Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Aktham El Kholy of Egypt; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Hussein Nuaman Soufraki (Italy) v. The United Arab Emirates ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $2,500,000,000 Soufraki is asking a second ICSID tribunal to annul the first tribunal’s July 2004 denial of jurisdiction. Claimants’ Counsel: William Rogers, Whitney Debevoise, and Jean Kalicki of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Stephen Jagusch of Allen & Overy in London and Simon Roderick of Allen & Overy in Dubai Arbitrators: Florentino Feliciano of the Philippines (President); Omar Nabulsi of Jordan; Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris I Motorola Credit Corporation, Inc. (U.S.) v. Republic of Turkey ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $2,000,000,000 A BIT dispute arising out Motorola’s investment in a mobile phone system controlled by members of the Uzan family, now wanted for alleged fraud in Turkey. Arbitrators have yet to be appointed. Turkey is seeking to recover Uzan assets on its own behalf. Motorola’s fraud claim against the Uzans personally resulted in a $4 billion verdict in New York federal court in July 2003. Contract arbitrations between the Uzan companies and Motorola are pending in Switzerland. Claimants’ Counsel: Howard Stahl, Steven Davidson, and Jeffrey Pryce of Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: H. Tunç Ceyhan, Ümit Pamukçu, and Zeynep Tekin of the Ministry of Finance in Turkey Arbitrators: To be determined Saluka Investments B.V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic Ad hoc, Geneva Stakes: $1,500,000,000 The Japanese bank Nomura invested in a privatized Czech bank in 1998. Its subsidiary, Saluka, complains under the Dutch-Czech BIT that the Czech Republic, by giving state aid to rival unprivatized banks, rendered its investment worthless. The Czech counterclaim sought to hold Nomura responsible for the state aid later given to the successor of the Czech bank in which Nomura invested. The panel declined jurisdiction over the counterclaim, but the Czech Republic makes the same argument in a parallel contract arbitration it has filed against Nomura. Arguments were heard by the BIT tribunal in April 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson, Peter Turner, Mitesh Kotecha, Zac Douglas, Marion Colombani of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Ian Taylor and Robert Fell of Freshfields in London; James Crawford of Cambridge University Respondents’ Counsel: George von Mehren of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in Cleveland and Lubos Tichy of Squire, Sanders in Prague Arbitrators: Sir Arthur Watts, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London (Chair); Peter Behrens of Hamburg; L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal Aguas Argentinas, S.A. (Argentina), SUEZ (France), Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. (Spain), Vivendi Universal, S.A. (France) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1,400,000,000 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. Arguments are under way on jurisdiction, and on the right of public interest groups to intervene. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby, Noiana Marigo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields in Rome. Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, 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 BV (Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland Ad hoc, NL-Poland BIT, Brussels Stakes: $1,340,000,000 A BIT dispute arising out of the privatization, and subsequent public offering, of Poland’s leading insurance company. A decision on jurisdiction and the merits is expected imminently. If necessary, the panel will then hear arguments on the amount of damages. Claimants’ Counsel: Daniella Strik and Peter Bannier of Nauta Dutilh in Rotterdam; Otto de Witt Winjen of the Netherlands; White & Case in Warsaw Respondents’ Counsel: Sarah François-Poncet and Jeffrey Hertzfeld of Salans in Paris; Greg Reid and Stuart Dutson of Linklaters in London; James Crawford of Cambridge University Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (Chair); Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Jerzy Rajski of Warsaw Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises (Mauritius) Company v. Government of India Ad hoc, London Stakes: $1,300,000,000 Another BIT dispute flowing from the Dabhol power project in Mumbai. GE and Bechtel filed this claim in the name of their Mauritian subsidiaries, under the India-Mauritius investment treaty. Meanwhile, the Bechtel claimant pressed a parallel ICC contract arbitration in the face of antiarbitration injunctions by the Indian courts. On April 27, the ICC panel concluded that an expropriation had occurred, and found the Indian State of Maharashtra liable to the Bechtel claimant for its $95 million investment in the power project, plus interest, costs, and fees. The main hearings in the Mauritian treaty arbitration are set for late July. 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 Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: David Kavanagh of Watson, Farley & Williams in London; Som Mandal of Fox Mandal & Co. in New Delhi; Sir Arthur Watts, QC, and Simon Browne-Wilkinson, QC, in London Arbitrators: Dame Rosalyn Higgins of the International Court of Justice (Chair); Martin Hunter of Essex Court Chambers in London; Lord Cooke of Thorndon of New Zealand Enersis, S.A. (Chile), Chilectra, S.A. (Chile), Empresa Nacional de Electricidad, S.A. (Chile), Elesur, S.A. (Chile) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1,300,000,000 A BIT dispute in the power sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Arguments on jurisdiction are under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Juan I. Tena and Mercedes Fernández of Jones Day in Madrid Respondents’ Counsel: Cintia Yaryura, María Victoria Vitali and Ignacio Torterola of Procuraduría del Tesoro de Argentina Arbitrators: Roberto MacLean of Peru (President); Luis Herrera Marcano of Venezuela; Robert Volterra of Latham & Watkins in London Yukos Universal Ltd (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation Ad hoc, Location to be determined Stakes: $1,300,000,000 Another arbitration filed by investors in the Yukos oil company, who allege that Russia has expropriated their assets in violation of the Energy Charter Treaty. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard, Yas Banifatemi, and Philippe Pinsolle of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Greig of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Arbitrators: At press time the chair had not yet been selected; Daniel Price of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. The Loewen Group, Inc. (Canada) and Raymond L. Loewen (Canada) v. The United States of America ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1,125,000,000 Claimants, a Canadian funeral home chain and its founder, wish to be compensated by the U.S. for the consequences of a runaway Mississippi jury verdict, in a case arising out of a small dispute with a local funeral home. Although the arbitral panel agreed that "a miscarriage of justice" had occurred, in June 2003 it dismissed claims brought under NAFTA on jurisdictional grounds. In September 2004 the panel declined an unusual invitation by the U.S. to clarify its ruling, and stated that it had fully resolved all claims. Raymond Loewen is now challenging the arbitration award in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan, formerly of Jones Day, now 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 and Joseph Huntof U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Sir Anthony Mason of Australia (President); Abner J. Mikva of the U.S.; Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London Vannessa Ventures Ltd. (Canada) v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1,045,000,000 The Vannessa mining company claims that Venezuela expropriated its gold mine in violation of the Canada-Venezuela BIT. Claimants’ Counsel: John Terry, Andrew Gray and Julie McLean of Torys in Toronto Respondents’ Counsel: Marisol Plaza Irigoyen of Procuradora General de la Republica in Venezuela; Ronald Goodman of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: To date, no chairman has been appointed; Charles Brower of White & Case in Washington, D.C., and 20 Essex Street in London; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris Eurotunnel Group (France and the U.K.) v. The French Republic and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Permanent Court of Arbitration, Brussels Stakes: $1,000,000,000 Eurotunnel claims that France and the U.K. are violating their obligations under the 1986 Treaty of Canterbury and the concession agreement for operating the Channel Tunnel. Among other things, Eurotunnel is 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. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Volterra, formerly of Herbert Smith, and Stephen Fietta of Latham & Watkins in London Respondents’ Counsel: For The French Republic: Jean-Luc Florent and Dietmar Petrausch of Ministere des Affaires Etrangères in Paris; For The U.K.: Chris Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London Arbitrators: James Crawford of Cambridge University (Chair); L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice; Lord Millet of the U.K. Telefónica S.A. (Spain) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $1,000,000,000 A BIT dispute in the telecommunications sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Giorgio Sacerdoti of Italy (President); Charles Brower of White & Case in Washington, D.C., and 20 Essex Street in London; Eduardo Siqueiros of Mexico Methanex Corporation (Canada) v. United States of America Ad hoc, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $970,000,000 Methanex, a Canadian maker of methanol, argues under NAFTA that a California environmental regulation, banning methanol as a gasoline additive, was designed to favor U.S. makers of ethanol. This was the first NAFTA dispute to open its hearings to the public and to accept amicus curiae submissions. A hearing on the merits (excluding the amount of damages) was held in June 2004. Award expected imminently. Claimants’ Counsel: Christopher Dugan of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Andrea Menaker of U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C.; Barton Legum of Debevoise & Plimpton in Paris Arbitrators: V.V. Veeder, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (Chair); J. William Rowley of McMillan Binch in Toronto and 20 Essex Street in London; W. Michael Reisman of Yale University Enron Corp., Ponderosa Assets L.P. (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Paris and Washington, D.C. Stakes: $825,000,000 Another BIT dispute arising out of the Argentine currency crisis, based on claimants’ minority interest in a local natural gas transit company. The tribunal upheld its jurisdiction in January 2004. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: R. Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston; Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (President); Héctor Gros Espiell of Uruguay; Pierre-Yves Tschanz of Tavernier Tschanz in Geneva Azurix Corp. (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Paris and Washington, D.C. Stakes: $600,000,000 Another BIT dispute in the water sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The panel asserted jurisdiction in December 2003. Hearing on the merits was held in October 2004. A challenge to the tribunal president by Argentina, based on a perceived conflict of interest, divided the two party-appointed arbitrators, but the challenge was rejected by the president of ICSID’s administrative council on April 15. At press time the parties were awaiting an award on the merits. Claimants’ Counsel: R. Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston; Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Andrés Rigo Sureda of Spain (President); Daniel Martins of Uruguay; Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal The AES Corporation (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $575,000,000 Another BIT dispute in the power sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Hearing on jurisdiction was held in October 2004. At press time the parties were awaiting an award. Claimants’ Counsel: David M. Lindsey, James M. Hosking, and Andrea Goldbarg of Clifford Chance in New York and Fabricio Longhin of Clifford Chance in Washington, D.C.; Uriel O’Farrell of Estudio O’Farrell in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Pierre-Marie DuPuy of European University Institute (President); Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel of the University of Cologne; Domingo Bello Janeiro of Escola Galega de Administración Pública in Spain Victor Pey Casado (Chile and Spain) and President Allende Foundation (Spain) v. Republic of Chile ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $515,000,000 Casado claims that his newspaper was expropriated as a result of the 1973 Chilean coup by General Augusto Pinochet. He filed a retroactive claim under the 1994 Chile-Spain BIT, and assigned part of the claim to the nonprofit Allende Foundation. Awaiting an award on both jurisdiction and the merits. Claimants’ Counsel: Juan Garcés y Ramón of Madrid; Carole Malinvaud of Gide Loyrette Nouel in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Ronald Goodman and Paolo Di Rosa of Winston & Strawn in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Pierre Lalive of Lalive & Partners in Geneva (President); Mohammed Bedjaoui of Algeria; Galo Leoro Franco of Ecuador Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Germany) v. Republic of the Philippines ICSID, Delocalized proceeding pursuant to the ICSID Convention Stakes: $500,000,000 A consortium including Fraport 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. Fraport is pursuing BIT arbitration, and its consortium, PIATCO, is pursuing contract arbitration. Briefing on all issues is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Jeffrey Barist of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York and Michael Nolan of Milbank in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutny of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Florentino Feliciano in Manila Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); Bernardo Cremades of Cremades y Associados in Madrid; W. Michael Reisman of Yale University Telekom Malaysia Berhad (Malaysia) v. Government of Ghana Ad hoc, The Hague Stakes: $500,000,000 Telekom Malaysia complains, under the Ghana-Malaysia BIT, that inequitable regulatory actions have stripped it of control in Ghana’s national telecommunications company. Final award expected imminently. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Volterra, formerly of Herbert Smith, now 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 CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic Ad hoc, Stockholm Stakes: $495,000,000 CME, controlled by New York investor Ronald Lauder, has finally closed the loop on its historic BIT claim against the Czech Republic for expropriation of a Czech television station ["Czech Mate," The American Lawyer, March 2002]. On March 14, 2003, a panel in Stockholm rendered an award in CME’s favor. On May 15, 2003, a Swedish appeals court rejected the Czech challenge to that award, and on May 17, the Czech Republic paid CME $358.6 million (including about $4 million in attorneys’ fees). A separate arbitration filed in August 2003 against CET 21 spol. s r.o. ended in October 2003 with a settlement of about $53 million. Coming full circle, CME reacquired control of TV Nova for about $642 million in December 2004. Claimants’ Counsel: John Kiernan, Mark Friedman and Michael Ostrove of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York, London, and Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Jeremy Carver and Audley Sheppard of Clifford Chance in London and Vladimir Petrus and Miroslav Dubovsky of Clifford Chance in Prague Arbitrators: Wolfgang Kühn of Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek in Düsseldorf (Chair); Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Ian Brownlie, QC, of Blackstone Chambers in London Siemens A.G. (Germany) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $460,000,000 A BIT dispute arising out of the Argentine currency crisis, based on Siemens’s contract to create information systems for Argentine elections, personal identification, and immigration. In August 2003 the panel confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case, based on its interpretation of the "most favored nation" treaty clause. Argentina moved to remove the tribunal president for a perceived conflict of interest, but the two party-appointed arbitrators rejected this motion in March. A hearing on the merits was scheduled for April 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires; Peter Gnam of Siemens A.G. in Munich Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Andrés Rigo Sureda of Spain (President); Charles Brower of White & Case in Washington, D.C., and 20 Essex Street in London; Domingo Bello Janeiro of Spain Camuzzi International S.A. (Luxembourg) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $450,000,000 A BIT dispute concerning Camuzzi’s investment in electric utilities, arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The hearing on jurisdiction took place in November 2004, and the parties are awaiting a decision. Claimants’ Counsel: Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Enrique Gómez-Pinzón of Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C. (President); Henri Alvarez of Fasken Martineau & DuMoulin in Vancouver; Héctor Gros Espiell of Uruguay Impregilo S.p.A. (Italy) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $450,000,000 The Italian engineering firm Impregilo won a bid in 1995 to build a series of canals, bridges, and dams in Pakistan as part of a big hydroelectric project. Alleging that the Pakistani water authority missed the contract’s key deadlines and requirements, Impregilo has filed a claim for expropriation under the Italian-Pakistani BIT. A hearing on jurisdiction was held in May 2004, and a decision is expected shortly. Claimants’ Counsel: Stanimir Alexandrov and Daniel Price of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Antonio Crivellaro of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Milan; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Government counsel Arbitrators: To be determined Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi Ankara (Turkey) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $400,000,000 Bayindir, a Turkish construction firm, claims that Pakistan, after a change in government, stripped it of a major highway contract in favor of local outfits. Briefing on jursidiction under way in early 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Michael Bühler and Jonathan Eades of Jones Day in Paris; 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 Böckstiegel of the University of Cologne A Greek investor v. Republic of Georgia ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $350,000,000 An investor in Tramex, Inc., complains that a contract to reconstruct oil pipelines in Georgia was snatched away from his company. Tramex is a Panamanian company with Greek and Israeli shareholders. The request for arbitration, filed in early 2005, cites both the Greece-Georgia BIT and the European Charter Treaty. Claimants’ Counsel: Karyl Nairn of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in London Respondents’ Counsel: Government counsel Arbitrators: To be determined First Eagle Funds (U.S.), et al. v. Bank for International Settlements (Switzerland) Ad hoc, The Hague Stakes: $350,000,000 In January 2001 the Bank for International Settlements forced its private shareholders to cash out their 13.5 percent stake. Unhappy with the bank’s valuation of their shares, three of the larger minority shareholders, led by New York pension fund First Eagle, brought an arbitration under the 1930 treaty establishing the bank. In September 2003 the tribunal held that BIS owed private shareholders an additional sum of about $500 million, including $60 million for First Eagle. Claimants’ Counsel: Donald Donovan of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Claudia Annacker of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris and Jonathan Blackman and Mitchell Lowenthal of Cleary Gottlieb in New York Arbitrators: W. Michael Reisman of Yale University (Chair); Jochen Frowein of Heidelberg University; Mathias Krafft of the University of Lausanne; Paul Lagarde of the University Panthéon-Sorbonne; Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels Camuzzi International S.A. (Luxembourg) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Paris Stakes: $340,000,000 A BIT dispute concerning Camuzzi’s investment in gas utilities, arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The hearing on jurisdiction took place in November 2004, and the parties are awaiting a decision. Claimants’ Counsel: R. Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (President); Sandra Morelli Rico of Colombia; Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal Vivendi Universal S.A. (France) and Compagñía de Aguas del Aconquija SA (Argentina) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $340,000,000 An Argentine BIT claim predating the Argentine currency crisis, but raising similar issues. Vivendi and its Argentine subsidiary complain that their water utility in the city of Tucuman was expropriated in violation of the French-Argentine BIT. A first set of arbitrators declined to rule on some claims in November 2000, but a second panel annulled that decision in July 2002. Vivendi has resubmitted the case, and a hearing on the merits is scheduled for August 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Stanimir Alexandrov and Daniel Price of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Bernardo Cremades of Cremades y Associados in Madrid; Luis Erize of Abeledo Gotthiel in Buenos Aires; Ignacio Colombres Garmendia of Ignacio Colombres Garmendia & Associates in Tucumán; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Carlos Ignacio Suarez Anzorena of the Attorney General’s Office in Argentina; William Rogers of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal (President); James Crawford of Cambridge University; José Carlos Fernandez Rozas of Abogados y Asesores de Empresas in Madrid Corn Products International, Inc. (U.S.) v. United Mexican States ICSID, Toronto Stakes: $325,000,000 In a case that lies at the junction of trade and investment law, claimant argues that measures protecting Mexican sugar growers are discriminatory under NAFTA. Specifically, it objects to the excise tax imposed by Mexico on soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup rather than sugar. Briefing is under way, but Mexico has moved to consolidate this case with the similar case filed against Mexico by Archer Daniels Midland, and a special tribunal has convened to rule on consolidation. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Mexico are tussling over the same tax in the World Trade Organization. Claimants’ Counsel: Lucinda Low, Robert Herzstein, Myles Getlan and Joseph Whitlock of Miller & Chevalier in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz, Director General de Consultoria Juridica de Negociaciones Secretaria de Economia Mexico in Mexico Arbitrators: Christopher Greenwood, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London (President); Andreas Lowenfeld of New York University; Jesus Serrano de la Vega of Mexico Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $311,000,000 The Mexican firm Autopista contracted to operate a toll road between Caracas and the port city of La Guaira, Venezuela. Due to civil unrest resulting from proposed toll increases, the contract was effectively terminated. In September 2003 the panel awarded Autopista about $13 million for out-of-pocket expenses, while rejecting its large claim for lost profits as speculative. Claimants’ Counsel: Donald Donovan and Dietmar Prager of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Alexander Bennett, Susan Lee, and Mara Senn of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva (President); Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel of the University of Cologne; Bernardo Cremades of Cremades y Associados in Madrid ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (The Netherlands), ANZEF Limited (U.K.), BNP Paribas (France), Crédit Lyonnais S.A. (France), Credit Suisse First Boston (Switzerland), Erste Bank der Oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG (Austria), Standard Chartered Bank (U.K.) v. Republic of India Ad hoc, Location to be determined Stakes: $300,000,000 More BIT disputes flowing from the massive but mothballed Dabhol power project in Mumbai. Seven of the foreign lenders to the project are suing India for violating the BITs it signed with each bank’s headquarters nation. In the banks’ view, political interference made it impossible for the Dabhol project sponsors to repay their loans. At press time settlement negotiations were ongoing. Claimants’ Counsel: Audley Sheppard and Chris Wyman of Clifford Chance in London Respondents’ Counsel: Som Mandal of Fox Mandal & Co. in New Delhi Arbitrators: To date, no chairman has been appointed; Christoph Schreuer of the University of Vienna; Christopher Greenwood, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London Noble Ventures, Inc. (U.S.) v. Republic of Romania ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $300,000,000 A BIT dispute arising out of a U.S. investor’s purchase of a Romanian state steel mill. Awaiting the Tribunal’s award. Claimants’ Counsel: Barry Appleton of Appleton & Associates in Toronto Respondents’ Counsel: Darryl Lew, Abby Cohen Smutny and Francis Vasquez, Jr. of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Cornel Popa and Florentin Tuca of Musat & Asociatii in Bucharest Arbitrators: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel of the University of Cologne (President); Sir Jeremy Lever, QC, of Monckton Chambers in London; Pierre-Marie DuPuy of European University Institute Plama Consortium Limited (Cyprus) v. Republic of Bulgaria ICSID, Paris Stakes: $300,000,000 Plama, a Cyprus-based investment vehicle, bought a private Bulgarian oil refinery mired in bankruptcy. The investment failed, and Plama brought an action grounded in both the Bulgaria-Cyprus BIT and the Energy Charter Treaty. Bulgaria objected to jurisdiction, questioning the authenticity of Plama’s connection to Cyprus. In February 2005 the panel declined jurisdiction under the BIT, but accepted jurisdiction under the ECT. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Paul Friedland of White & Case in New York and Carolyn Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutny 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 PSEG Global, Inc., The North American Coal Corporation, and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (U.S.) v. Republic of Turkey ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $300,000,000 Claimants proposed to develop a coal-fired power plant in the Konya Ilgin region of southwest Turkey, with the help of government guarantees. Turkey says an agreement was never reached. Claimants argue that their Konya Ilgin joint venture had already been formed, but the project was stillborn when Turkey revoked its guarantees, in violation of the U.S.—Turkey BIT. On June 4, 2004, the tribunal accepted jurisdiction over PSEG and Konya Ilgin Ltd., while rejecting jurisdiction over the North American Coal Company. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: Carolyn Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutny of White & Case in Washington, D.C.; Mesut Çakmak of Çakmak Ortak Avukat Bürosu in Ankara Respondents’ Counsel: Daniel Price of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C.; Serdar Paksoy of Paksoy & Co. in Istanbul Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (President); L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler of Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva LG&E Energy LLC (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $290,000,000 Another BIT dispute in the power sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The panel asserted jurisdiction in April 2004. Hearing on the merits was completed January 29, 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: Eugene D. Gulland and Oscar M. Garibaldi of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.; Horacio Ruiz Moreno of Hope, Duggan & Silva in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Tatiana de Maekelt of Venezuela (President); Judge Francisco Rezek of the International Court of Justice; Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels CMS Energy Corp. (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Paris, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $261,000,000 Another BIT dispute in the power sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Merits hearing took place in Paris in August 2004. Award was expected to be handed down in early 2005, but had not yet arrived by press time. This award is apt to influence the remaining Argentine arbitrations, especially in the power sector. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby, Noah Rubins, and Blanca Montejo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris, Lucy Reed and Sylvia Noury of Freshfields in New York, Lluis Paradell of Freshfields in Rome, and Jonathan Sutcliffe and Maria Aragon of Freshfields in London; Guido Tawil of M. & M. Bomchil Abogados in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (President); Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal; Judge Francisco Rezek of the International Court of Justice Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe, S.A. (Argentina), SUEZ S.A. (France), Sociedad General de Aguas Barcelona, S.A. (Spain), Interagua, Servicios Integrales del Agua, S.A. (Spain) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $250,000,000 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. Arguments are under way on jurisdiction, and on the right of public interest groups to intervene. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby and Noiana Marigo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields in Rome. Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, 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.), Hala Talebagha (U.S.), Badie Talebagha (U.S.) v. Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID, Paris Stakes: $250,000,000 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. Briefing on jurisdiction and the merits was under way in early 2005. Claimants’ Counsel: John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Saint-Esteben, Louis Christophe Delanoy, and Tim Portwood of Bredin Prat in Paris Arbitrators: Pierre Tercier of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland (President); Ibrahim Fadlallah of the University of Paris X; Alain Viandier of the University of Paris IV Sempra Energy International (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Paris, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $250,000,000 Another BIT dispute in the power sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. The hearing on jurisdiction took place in November 2004, and the parties are awaiting a decision on jurisdiction. Claimants’ Counsel: R. Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (President); Sandra Morelli Rico of Colombia; Marc Lalonde of Stikeman Elliott in Montreal Occidental Exploration and Petroleum Company (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador Ad hoc, London; Washington, D.C. Stakes: $204,000,000 Occidental says Ecuador violated a BIT when it stopped awarding Occidental a value added tax credit. In July 2004 the tribunal asserted jurisdiction and awarded Occidental approximately $75 million. Ecuador is challenging the award in the British courts. In April a High Court judge rejected Occidental’s threshold argument that BIT claims are nonjusticiable. Claimants’ Counsel: David Rivkin and Gaetan Verhoosel of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York Respondents’ Counsel: Eric Ordway of Weil Gotshal & Manges in New York and Charles Roh and David Hickerson of Weil, Gotshal in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (Chair); Charles Brower of White & Case in Washington, D.C., and 20 Essex Street in London; Patrick Barrera Sweeney of Ecuador El Paso Energy International Company (U.S.) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Geneva; Washington, D.C. Stakes: $200,000,000 Another BIT dispute in the power sector arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Briefing on the merits is under way. Claimants’ Counsel: R. Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston; José Martinez de Hoz of Perez of Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz in Buenos Aires Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: Lucius Caflisch of Switzerland (President); Brigitte Stern of the University of Paris I; Piero Bernardini of Ughi e Nunziante in Rome FW Oil Interests, Inc. (U.S.) v. Republic of Trinidad and Tobago ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $200,000,000 FW Oil, a Houston wildcatter, alleges that Trinidad and Tobago withdrew a contract that it had been awarded, for the regeneration of the Soldado oil and gas fields on the marine border between Trinidad and Venezuela. Awaiting a final award. Claimants’ Counsel: Shai Wade and Stephen York of Vinson & Elkins in London Respondents’ Counsel: John Almeida of Charles Russell Solicitors in London Arbitrators: Fali Nariman, President of the Bar Association of India (President); Frank Berman, QC, of Essex Court Chambers in London; Lord Michael Mustill of Essex Court Chambers in London SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. (Switzerland) v. Republic of the Philippines ICSID, Paris Stakes: $170,000,000 The Swiss firm SGS contracted to provide port services for the Philippines. Under a novel theory, SGS tried to recover for contract breaches under investment treaties. In August 2003 the Filipino tribunal denied jurisdiction. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Judith Gill and Matthew Gearing of Allen & Overy in London Arbitrators: Ahmed El-Kosheri of Rashed & Riad in Cairo (President); Antonio Crivellaro of Bonelli Erede Pappalardo in Italy; James Crawford of Cambridge University Lucchetti S.A. (Chile) and Lucchetti Peru S.A. (Peru) v. Republic of Peru ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $150,000,000 A Chilean pasta manufacturer complained that Peru unlawfully denied it permits to build a new pasta factory. Peru alleged corruption, which Lucchetti denies. The tribunal held in February 2005 that it lacked jurisdiction, because the dispute originated before the signature of the Peru-Chile BIT. Without directly addressing the corruption allegations, the tribunal added that, if proved, they would provide an independent ground to deny jurisdiction. At press time Lucchetti was still weighing whether to apply to have the award annulled. Claimants’ Counsel: Robert Volterra, formerly of Herbert Smith, and Alejandro Escobar of Latham & Watkins in London; Edmundo Eluchans of Edmundo Eluchans y Cia. in Santiago Respondents’ Counsel: Daniel Price, Stanimir Alexandrov, Nicolas Lloreda and Lisa Crosby of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Schwebel of Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Judge Thomas Buergenthal of the International Court of Justice (President); Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Bernardo Cremades of Cremades y Asociados in Madrid SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. (Switzerland) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID, The Hague; Paris Stakes: $150,000,000 The Swiss firm SGS contracted to provide port services for Pakistan. Under a novel theory, SGS tried to recover for contract breaches under investment treaties. In February 2004 the Pakistani tribunal asserted jurisdiction only over BIT claims. In a spring 2004 settlement the parties agreed to withdraw their claims against each other and to continue doing business together. As part of the settlement, SGS paid $2 million of Pakistan’s fees, and admitted to breaches of its internal controls; the Pakistani press reported that former SGS employees had paid bribes to obtain the contract. Claimants’ Counsel: Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris and John Savage of Shearman & Sterling in Singapore Respondents’ Counsel: Jan Paulsson and Nigel Blackaby of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris; Salman Talibuddin of Kabraji & Talibuddin in Karachi Arbitrators: Florentino Feliciano of the Philippines (President); André Faurès of Coudert Brothers in Brussels; Christopher Thomas, QC, of Thomas & Partners in Vancouver Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. (Spain) v. Republic of El Salvador ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $122,000,000 A BIT claim arising out of a Spanish company’s contract for provision of vehicle inspection services in El Salvador. Jurisdictional issues have been fully briefed. Claimants’ Counsel: David J. Mülchi Paníco of Mülchi & Asociados in Madrid Respondents’ Counsel: Whitney Debevoise, David Orta, and Jean Kalicki of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. Arbitrators: Rodrigo Oreamuno of Costa Rica (President); Burton Landy of the U.S.; Claus von Wobeser of Mexico Interbrew Central European Holding BV (The Netherlands) v. The Republic of Slovenia ICSID, Paris Stakes: $111,000,000 The Belgian brewer Interbrew (now part of InBev) failed in its bid to acquire Slovenia’s number two brewer, Pivovarna Union. It complains in a BIT action that its bid failed because a fund managing the State’s assets privately sold a block of shares to Pivovarna Lasko, Slovenia’s largest brewer. Procedural hearings were held in March. Claimants’ Counsel: Philippe Pinsolle and Emmanuel Gaillard of Shearman & Sterling in Paris Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Greig of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Paris Arbitrators: Francisco Orrego Vicuña of the University of Chile (President); Charles Brower of White & Case in Washington, D.C., and 20 Essex Street in London; Florentino Feliciano of the Philippines Aguas Cordobesas, S.A. (Argentina), SUEZ S.A. (France), Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. (Spain) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100,000,000 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. Arguments are under way on jurisdiction, and on the right of public interest groups to intervene. Claimants’ Counsel: Nigel Blackaby and Noiana Marigo of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and Lluis Paradell of Freshfields in Rome. Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, 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
Archer Daniels Midland (U.S.) and A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (U.S.), on their own behalf and on behalf of their enterprise, Almidones Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) v. The United Mexican States ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: At least $100,000,000 In a case that lies at the junction of trade and investment law, ADM argues that measures protecting Mexican sugar growers are discriminatory under the NAFTA investment chapter. Specifically, claimants object to the excise tax imposed by Mexico on soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup rather than sugar. The Tribunal has not yet been constituted, but Mexico has moved to consolidate this case with the similar case filed against Mexico by Corn Products International, and a special tribunal has convened to rule on consolidation. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Mexico are tussling over the same tax in the WTO. Claimants’ Counsel: For A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.: Daniel Price, Stanimir Alexandrov and Amelia Porges of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C. For Archer Daniels: Warren Connelly and Lisa Palluconi of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Hugo Perezcano Diaz of the Government of Mexico Arbitrators: To be determined
Cargill, Inc. (U.S.) v. Republic of Poland ICSID, Location to be determined Stakes: At least $100,000,000 Cargill is suing Poland under the U.S.-Poland BIT for imposing quotas on high fructose corn syrup, to the detriment of Cargill’s investment in a manufacturing plant. The case is at an early procedural stage. Claimants’ Counsel: Daniel Price and Stanimir Alexandrov of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood in Washington, D.C. Respondents’ Counsel: Rudolf Ostrihansky 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 Champion Trading Company (U.S.) and Ameritrade International, Inc. (U.S.) v. Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID, Paris Stakes: $100,000,000 Champion lost its shirt after investing in Egypt’s National Cotton Company. It complains in a BIT action that Egypt discriminated against privatized cotton manufacturers by paying off the bank debts of those that remain public. Parties are in the process of limited discovery. Claimants’ Counsel: Peter Kirby of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Montreal Respondents’ Counsel: Robert Saint-Esteben of Bredin Prat in Paris Arbitrators: Robert Briner of Lenz & Staehelin in Geneva (President); L. Yves Fortier of Ogilvy Renault in Montreal; Laurent Aynes of Paris Enrho St. Ltd. (Cayman Islands ) v. The Republic of Kazakhstan ICSID, London Stakes: $100,000,000 After taking over utilities in the city of Karaganda, Enhro argues in a BIT claim that Kazakhstan barred it from charging adequate rates and imposed unlawful taxes. The parties settled on undicsclosed terms on September 21, 2004. Claimants’ Counsel: Matthew Weiniger and Francesca Albert of Herbert Smith in London; Julian Lew, QC, of 20 Essex Street in London Respondents’ Counsel: David Warne, Gautam Bhattacharyya and Rosanne Kay of Richards Butler in London. Arbitrators: Jan Paulsson of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris (President); Albert Jan van den Berg of Hanotiau & van den Berg in Brussels; Ahmed El-Kosheri of Rashed & Riad in Cairo TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. (Argentina) v. Argentine Republic ICSID, Washington, D.C. Stakes: $100,000,000 A BIT dispute in the telecommunications sector, arising out of the Argentine currency crisis. Claimant submitted its request for arbitration in December 2004. Claimants’ Counsel: R. Doak Bishop of King & Spalding in Houston Respondents’ Counsel: Osvaldo César Guglielmino, Attorney General of Argentina Arbitrators: To be determined | |||||||||||