ARBITRATION SCORECARD
CONTRACTS > > >
A listing of contract arbitrations active in 2009–2010 in which at least $1 billion was in controversy. For more contract arbitrations, please see americanlawyer.com/focuseurope.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: Up to $20 billion (including
$508 million counterclaim)
DISPUTE: Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. (Bahamas) v. Petroleos de
Venezuela S.A. and PDVSA Cerro Negro S.A. (Venezuela)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Covington & Burling
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/New York
NOTES: A dispute arising from Venezuela’s 2007 nationalization
of foreign operations in the Orinoco oil belt. A subsidiary of Exxon
Mobil Corporation, the claimant alleges breach of a guaranty by
Venezuela’s national oil company, PDVSA. The claimant also
alleges that PDVSA Cerro Negro failed to indemnify it for “
discriminatory measures” taken by Venezuela that caused a “materially
adverse impact” as defined by the contract. PDVSA disputes the allegations. In May 2008, PDVSA rolled back a $12 billion worldwide
freezing order that had been obtained by Mobil from a London high
court judge. The arbitral tribunal issued its decision on jurisdiction
in June 2010, and held the merits hearing in September 2010. A
parallel investment treaty claim is pending against Venezuela.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $14.9 billion
DISPUTE: Congo Mineral Developments Limited (Democratic
Republic of the Congo), Industrial Development Corporation
of South Africa Ltd (South Africa), and International Finance
Corporation (U.S.) v. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and
La Generale des las Carrieres et des Mines (The Democratic
Republic of the Congo)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Fasken Martineau
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Paris
NOTES: As part of a larger revisitation of mining agreements,
Congo in summer 2009 terminated the contract and canceled the
mining permit held by claimants, led by a unit of Canada’s First
Quantum Minerals, to reprocess copper and cobalt tailings in
Congo’s Kolwezi region. Claimants allege breach by Congo and its
state mining company Gecamines of a joint venture agreement,
which respondents deny. Claimants began to pursue a domestic
claim to reverse the mining permit decision, under which they
were initially held liable for $6 million on a counterclaim for damage to Congo’s reputation. Claimants filed this ICC arbitration on
February 1, 2010. On March 10, 2010, the Congo Court of Appeal
granted Congo’s vastly increased claim for reputational damage,
and held claimants liable for roughly $12 billion. Claimants regard
this court decision as retaliatory. In the arbitration, they seek a
declaration that the $12 billion judgment is either unenforceable
or reimbursable, as well as either specific performance of the joint
venture agreement or $2.9 billion in damages. A final award is
expected in 2012. A parallel ICSID arbitration has been brought
under Congo’s Mining Code by International Quantum Resources
Limited and others.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: Approximately $10 billion
DISPUTE: Anadarko Algeria Company LLC (U.K.) and Maersk Olie,
Algeriet A/S (Denmark) v. SONATRACH (Algeria)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: King & Spalding
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle;
Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Geneva
NOTES: Anadarko Petroleum and Maersk Oil seek damages from
the Algerian state oil company, Sonatrach, over its collection of
the Algerian tax on exceptional profits, in alleged breach of the
two entities’ production sharing agreement. After failing to resolve
the dispute through a formal conciliation process, Anadarko and
Maersk initiated arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. Hearings
in Geneva were scheduled for June 2011. Maersk has brought a
parallel treaty arbitration against Algeria.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $9.4 billion
DISPUTE: Telefónica Móviles, S.A. (Spain) v. Portugal Telecom
SGPS, S.A. (Portugal)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek;
Dewey & LeBoeuf
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: NA
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Amsterdam
NOTES: A battle for control of Brazil’s largest cell phone operator,
Vivo Participações, S.A., between Spain’s Telefonica and its joint
venture partner Portugal Telecom. Case settled in July 2010 before PT filed its answer to the request for arbitration.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $6.7 billion (including $228 million
counterclaim)
DISPUTE: German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and
Housing v. Toll Collect GbR (Germany), Daimler Financial Services
AG (Germany), and Deutsche Telekom AG (Germany); Toll Collect
GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Beiten Burkhardt; Linklaters (for
Germany)
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Hengeler Mueller; Shearman &
Sterling (for Toll Collect)
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc/Berlin
NOTES: Germany seeks lost revenues and contractual penalties
for the Toll Collect consortium’s alleged delay in constructing
and operating a high-tech toll-collection system for heavy trucks
on German highways. Toll Collect seeks compensation for toll
collection and other services provided to Germany, as well as
final operating permit and permission to conclude certain subcontractor agreements. Toll Collect is a public-private partnership
that includes Deutsche Telekom, Daimler Financial Services, and
France’s Cofiroute S.A.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: Over $5 billion (including counterclaim for more than $500 million)
DISPUTE: RosUkrEnergo AG (Switzerland) v. NAK Naftogaz
Ukrainiy (Ukraine)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: DLA Piper; Setterwalls
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: White & Case
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SCC/Stockholm
NOTES: A dispute arising from the January 2009 showdown over
Russia’s supply of natural gas to Ukraine. It pits Ukraine’s national
gas company Naftogaz against the RosUkrEnergo pipeline company,
