The American Lawyer - Focus Europe, Summer 2011

NOTES: This Canada–Venezuela BIT case concerns Vannessa’s alleged acquisition of gold and copper mining rights in Venezuela from Placer Dome Inc. for $50 and future royalties. In August 2008 an ICSID tribunal dismissed three of Venezuela’s jurisdictional objections, and ruled that a fourth objection will need to be examined in more detail at a later phase of the proceedings. In early 2011 a second company, Crystallex, filed an ICSID claim against Venezuela, professing to be the rightful owner of the concession claimed by Vannessa.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.1 billion

DISPUTE: Empresa Eléctrica del Ecuador, Inc. (EMELEC) (Ecuador) v. Republic of Ecuador CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Provost & Umphrey; Office of Henry St. Dahl RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins; Cabezas & Wray ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C. NOTES: A private electrical utility, EMELEC alleges that the Ecuadorian military seized its electricity-generating facilities in Guayaqil in March 2000, after its former owner, Ecuadorian businessman Fernando Aspiazu, was charged with banking irregularities. Ecuador prevailed in 2009 when arbitrators held that the claimant could not prove that they were owned by U.S. business interests, thus precluding jurisdiction under the U.S.–Ecuador BIT.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.1 billion

DISPUTE: HICEE B.V. (The Netherlands) v. The Slovak Republic CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sidley Austin RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Permanent Court of Arbitra-tion/UNCITRAL Rules/The Hague NOTES: When the Slovak government reversed a series of World Bank–sponsored health care reforms initiated by a previous administration, foreign investors cried foul. HICEE, a Dutch insurer, is one of three claimants (the others being Eureko and EURAM) to file separate claims alleging that their stakes in Slovak insurance companies were wiped out when the government passed a law mandating that insurance must be provided on a not-for-profit basis. Slovakia contests the claims. Jurisdictional hearings were held in July 2010.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion DISPUTE: Corporación Quiport S.A. and Others (Ecuador) v. Republic of Ecuador CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: White & Case RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Attorney General of Ecuador ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C. NOTES: Claimants are a consortium of multinational investors in connection with a complex dispute involving the construction of the new Quito international airport in Ecuador pursuant to a 30-year concession. The dispute has involved myriad proceedings under contracts and treaties. In early 2011 a settlement of the ICSID claim was announced by the parties.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion
DISPUTE: Holcim Limited (Switzerland), Holderfin B.V.
(The Netherlands), and Caricement B.V. (The Netherlands) v. The
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion DISPUTE: International Quantum Resources Limited (British Virgin Islands), Frontier SPRL (Congo), and Compagnie Minière de Sakania SPRL (Congo) v. Democratic Republic of the Congo CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Fasken Martineau RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C. NOTES: After Canada’s First Quantum Minerals brought an ICC arbitration against Congo over its giant Kolwezi copper project in February 2010, Congo halted operations of the Frontier and Lonshi copper mines operated by other Quantum entities near the border with Zambia. In this ICSID arbitration, brought in summer 2010, claimants allege that Congo’s actions were retaliatory, and violated the Congo Mining Code’s guarantee of secure investment. Claimants want their mining permits reinstated.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion DISPUTE: ABCI Investments N.V. (Jordan) v. Republic of Tunisia CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Patrick Juillard RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Herbert Smith ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris NOTES: ICSID proceedings brought by a foreign investor concerning the alleged expropriation of its interest in a Tunisian bank. The dispute involves claims under a BIT and domestic international investment law. In February 2011, a divided tribunal upheld jurisdiction over claims.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion

DISPUTE: Barmek Holding AS (Turkey) v. Republic of Azerbaijan CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Hogan Lovells; Yazici Law Firm RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Latham & Watkins ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/London NOTES: Turkey’s Barmek Holding alleged that Azerbaijan seized from it two electricity concessions as part of a campaign against former minister of the economy Farhad Aliyev, whom Azerbaijan accused of plotting a coup d’état financed with privatized state assets. Azerbaijan denied the allegations. The claims, filed under the Azerbaijan–Turkey BIT, settled on undisclosed terms in September 2009.