ARBITRATION SCORECARD
TREATIES > > >
NOTES: A dispute over the Ambassador Bridge, a toll crossing
between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, that is ultimately owned
by a private American company. Allegations center on Canada’s
decision not to upgrade the access road to the Ambassador
Bridge, and Canada’s construction of a new highway designed
to divert traffic to a new planned crossing that it will partly own.
The claimant argues, over Canada’s objection, that these actions
violated investment protections contained in the North American
Free Trade Agreement.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Pan American Energy LLC (Argentina) v. Plurinational
State of Bolivia
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Attorney General of Argentina
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Washington, D.C.
NOTES: Pan American opted for arbitration under the U.S.–Bolivia
BIT after Bolivia nationalized a 51 percent stake in Pan American
subsidiary Empresa Petrolera Chaco SA, a hydrocarbon exploration and production company. Pan American insists that Bolivia’s
compensation offer does not reflect the full-market value of the
assets, which Bolivia contests.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Centerra Gold Inc. (Canada) v. Kyrgyzstan Republic
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sullivan & Cromwell
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Allen & Overy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Permanent Court of
Arbitration (UNCITRAL)/Stockholm
NOTES: Centerra alleged violation of investment protections
under the governing agreements and laws of the Kyrgyz Republic,
where it operates a gold mine, the country’s largest industrial
project. Following preliminary briefing by the parties in 2008, the
parties undertook to resolve their dispute through direct negotiations. Settled confidentially in June 2009.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Sergei Paushok (Russia), CJSC Golden East Company
(Russia), and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company (Russia) v. Govern-
ment of Mongolia
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/The
Hague
NOTES: In 2006 Mongolia passed a windfall profits tax on gold
sales above $500 per ounce. Russian miners now challenge the
tax under the Mongolia–Russia BIT. In April 2010 the tribunal
dismissed the main claim, and agreed with Mongolia that the
claimants’ choice not to obtain a stability pact deprived them of
the legitimate expectation that no windfall profits tax would be
imposed in the future.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Ioan Micula, S.C. European Food S.A. (Sweden), S.C.
Starmill S.R.L. (Romania), S.C. Multipack S.R.L. (Romania), and
Viorel Micula (Sweden) v. Republic of Romania
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding; Shearman & Sterling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICSID/Paris
NOTES: Two individuals and three food and beverage companies
from Sweden allege that Romania improperly withdrew certain
government incentives and tax benefits in disadvantaged areas of
the country. Romania contends, among other things, that these
steps were taken as part of the E.U. accession process. Hearings
on the merits were held in Paris in November 2010.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1 billion
DISPUTE: Perenco Ecuador Limited (Bahamas) v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Debevoise & Plimpton; Covington &
Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dechert, Procurador General del
Estado Ingeniero Derlis Palacios – Ministro de Minas y Petroleos;
Director Nacional de Patrocinio Internacional Procuraduria General
del Estado; Empressa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador (
PetroEcuador); Presidente Ejecutivo
The 2011 Arbitration Scorecard covers international arbitrations (not limited
to Europe) that were active in the years
2009 and 2010. In this issue, we have
listed 65 contract and 48 investment
treaty arbitrations in which at least $1
billion was at stake. A longer list of treaty
arbitrations worth at least $100 million
and contract arbitrations worth at least
$500 million is available online at americanlawyer.com/focuseurope. Because
many arbitrations are confidential, neither
list is comprehensive. Many big cases may
enter the public domain through collateral
litigation, press coverage, or securities disclosures. However, some large arbitrations
HOW WE DO IT
remain undisclosed because they are at
an early stage, the parties are nonpublic,
the risk of liability is spread among members of a consortium, or the company is so
large that it contends that the dispute is
immaterial.
We relied primarily on information sup-
plied by lawyers involved in the cases, sup-
plemented in some cases by arbitration or
court papers, securities disclosures, and
media reports. In many cases we have had
to rely on information from only one side
in the dispute, and we were not able to
obtain a response from the other side in
all cases. The cooperating lawyers are not
identified. The “amount in controversy” in
a case represents the sum of claims and
counterclaims. Case values are based on
lawyers’ representations and are usually
approximate. Survey participants were
asked to express all amounts in U.S. dol-
lars at December 2010 exchange rates.
