Selected Arbitration Matters

Treaty Cases

• Optima Ventures LLC, Optima 7171 LLC and Optima 55 Public Square LLC v. United States of America. Arbitrator appointed by respondent the United States of America in ICSID matter. Pending.

• ICSID Annulment Committee Member in a BIT dispute.  Appointed by Chairman of the Administrative Council of ICSID in Pawlowski AG and Projekt Sever s.r.o. v. Czech Republic. Pending.

• ICSID Annulment Committee President in a BIT dispute.  Appointed by Chairman of the Administrative Council of ICSID in Almasryia for Operating & Maintaining Touristic Construction Co. L.L.C. v. State of Kuwait. Concluded.

• ICSID Annulment Committee President in a BIT dispute.  Appointed by Chairman of the Administrative Council of ICSID in Longreef Investment A.V.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Concluded.

• Olegs Roscins v. Republic of Lithuania. Arbitrator appointed by respondent Lithuania in ICSID matter.  Discontinued.

• ICSID Annulment Committee Member in a BIT dispute. Appointed by Chairman of the Administrative Council of ICSID in OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Concluded.

• Raiffeisen Bank International AG and Raiffeisen Bank Austria d.d. v. Republic of Croatia. Counsel for the State in defense of an UNCITRAL Rules claim under the Austria-Croatia BIT.  Terminated with costs to the State following Croatia’s successful application to the German courts for a declaration of inadmissibility.

• Adria Group B.V. and Adria Group Holding B.V. v. Republic of Croatia. Counsel for the State in defense of an ICSID claim under the Croatia-Netherlands BIT.  Pending.

• Elektrogospodarstvo Slovenije - razvoj in inzeniring d.o.o. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Co-counsel for claimant in an ICSID Arbitration Rules case brought under a BIT and the Energy Charter Treaty.  Pending.

• Investment treaty claimant v. Middle Eastern State. Advisory services to two claimant companies in a dispute under a UK BIT. Concluded with favorable settlement.

• Deripaska v. the State of Montenegro. Counsel for the State in defense of a PCA-administered UNCITRAL Rules BIT claim. The tribunal’s October 2019 award dismissed all claims, granting full costs to the State.

• Medusa Montenegro Limited v. the State of Montenegro. Counsel in defense of a claim under a UK and other BITs, a foreign investment law and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The tribunal’s July 2019 award dismissed all claims, with an award of arbitration costs to the State.

• AS PNB Banka and others v. Republic of Latvia. Co-counsel for the State in ICSID proceedings brought under the Latvia-UK BIT. (Nov. 9, 2018 – Feb. 15, 2019).

• Investment treaty claimant v. a Balkan State. Counsel for claimant in a dispute under a BIT and the Energy Charter Treaty. Consultations phase.

• CEAC Holdings Limited v. Montenegro. Co-counsel for the State in ICSID annulment proceedings with respect to an award on jurisdiction issued under the Cyprus-Serbia and Montenegro BIT. Annulment application denied, with full costs to the State.

• MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v. Montenegro. Co-counsel for all issues hearing in defense of a claim under a Dutch BIT, the foreign investment law and the ICSID Additional Facility Rules. All claims for damages dismissed, with a costs award in favor of the State.

• European American Investment Bank AG v. the Slovak Republic. Counsel in defense of a claim under the Austria-Slovakia BIT and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.  The dispute related to the regulation of the Slovak health insurance sector.  The tribunal’s October 2012 and June 2014 awards resulted in the dismissal of the claims in their entirety with a costs award in favor of the State. 

• U.S. Steel Global Holdings I B.V. v. the Slovak Republic. Advisor to the Ministry of Finance in defense of a claim initiated under the UNCITRAL Rules and the Dutch-Slovak BIT in relation to electricity tariff measures.  The tribunal took note of the withdrawal of the claims on agreed terms and terminated the proceedings in June 2014. 

• Slovak Gas Holding BV, GDF International SAS & E.ON Ruhrgas International GmbH v. the Slovak Republic. Co-lead arbitration counsel in defense of ICSID arbitration claims under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from the regulation of natural gas distribution.  The tribunal’s March 2013 award embodied the parties’ settlement agreement. 

• Alps Finance and Trade AG v. the Slovak Republic. Lead counsel in defense of a BIT claim brought under the Switzerland-Slovakia BIT and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules raising claims of denial of justice and full protection and security.  The tribunal’s March 2011 award dismissed all claims, with an award of costs, including costs of legal representation, in favor of Slovakia. 

• Investment treaty claimant v. Republic of Poland. Counsel in defense of a BIT claim brought under the ICC Rules.  Following the exchange of the principal pleadings and evidence discovery, the investor abandoned its claim.  The tribunal’s August 2011 award ordered the investor to pay Poland’s legal fees. 

• Austrian Airlines v. Slovak Republic. Lead counsel in defense of a multi-million Euro BIT claim brought under the Austria-Slovakia BIT and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.  In its October 2009 final award, the tribunal dismissed the investor’s claims. 

• Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH v. Ukraine. Advisor to counsel team defending an ICSID claim brought under the Germany-Ukraine BIT.  The dispute arose in connection with the operation of a windjammer sail training ship that was owned by an education institution of Ukraine. 

• Cargill, Incorporated v. Republic of Poland. Led the defense of a $150 million claim against Poland under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.  Claimant asserted that the imposition of EU-mandated agricultural product quotas resulted in violations of the Poland-U.S. BIT. 

• Glamis Gold v. United States of America. Defended initial phases of a $50 million claim under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by a Canadian gold mining company claiming expropriation and denial of the minimum standard of treatment resulting from federal and state measures concerning open-pit mining.  The tribunal’s 2009 award dismissed all claims. 

• Methanex v. United States of America. Defended a $970 million claim by a Canadian methanol producer under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.  Claimant argued that California’s ban of the fuel additive MTBE violated NAFTA’s national treatment, fair and equitable treatment, and expropriation provisions.  The tribunal dismissed all claims and awarded the U.S. its costs of defending the claim. 

• Mondev v. United States of America. Defended a $50 million claim by a Canadian developer under the NAFTA and the ICSID Additional Facility Rules.  Claimant asserted violations based on a decision of Massachusetts’ highest court.  Argued the central issues of the international minimum standard of treatment and denial of justice.  The tribunal decided the case in favor of the United States. 

• ADF v. United States of America. Defended a $90 million claim by a steel producer under the NAFTA and the ICSID Additional Facility Rules involving the application of the federal Surface Transportation Act.  Presented factual submissions and argument on fair and equitable treatment.  The tribunal decided the case in favor of the United States. 

• Fireman’s Fund v. Mexico. Represented U.S. interests as NAFTA Party on issues of treaty interpretation in a $50 million claim under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules.  Fireman’s alleged violations of NAFTA’s investment and financial services chapters in connection with an investment in bonds issued by a Mexican bank holding company. 

• Waste Management II v. Mexico. Represented U.S. interests as NAFTA Party on issues of treaty interpretation in a $60 million claim against Mexico under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules alleging breach of the fair and equitable treatment obligation and expropriation.