ARBITRATION SCORECARD
CONTRACTS > > >
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2.2 billion
DISPUTE: Excalibur Ventures LLC (U.S.) v. Texas Keystone, Inc.
(U.S.), Gulf Keystone Petroleum International Limited (Bermuda),
and Gulf Keystone Petroleum Limited (U.K.)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Jones Day; Memery Crystal
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/New York
NOTES: Excalibur claims a 30 percent interest in petroleum
exploration and extraction rights held by the respondents in Iraqi
Kurdistan, and seeks a working share in four oil fields held by
the respondents. It alleges that the respondents violated tort
law, and breached the parties’ joint bidding and collaboration
agreement, by denying Excalibur’s interest in production sharing
contracts signed in 2007 with the Kurdish Regional Government.
Respondents deny the allegations. A parallel claim has been
filed in London commercial court.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2.1 billion
DISPUTE: SONATRACH (Algeria) v. Sagane SA (Spain)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Bredin Prat; Schellenberg Wittmer
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Geneva
NOTES: A dispute between Sonatrach and an affiliate of Gas
Natural relating to the price and volumes of natural gas supplies.
A July 2010 award ordered the Spanish company to pay over
$2 billion to Sonatrach in money owed under two long-term
contracts. Sonatrach, which provides a quarter of all gas to the
Spanish market through its North African-European pipeline,
began arbitration in 2007 when Gas Natural refused to pay higher
prices. The ICC tribunal confirmed the Algerian company’s right to
revise its price formula. Gas Natural was ordered to pay the difference between the old and new rates for all the gas received under
both contracts in the relevant periods. Annulment proceedings
commenced in Switzerland in September 2010.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2 billion (including $1 billion
counterclaim)
DISPUTE: Innergy Soluciones Energéticas SA (Chile) v. YPF S.A.
(Argentina)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Chadbourne & Parke; Maciel, Norman
& Asociados
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton;
Pérez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martínez de Hoz, Jr.
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: AAA/New York
NOTES: A dispute between the leading Argentine oil and gas
producer, YPF, and a Chilean purchaser of natural gas, regarding
deliveries under a long-term natural gas supply agreement. YPF
invoked force majeure and requested equitable adjustment based
on economic hardship. One of the first “downstream” matters
testing whether governmental actions can give a private party the
right to invoke economic hardship as a basis of force majeure.
Settled confidentially in 2009.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $2 billion
DISPUTE: TeliaSonera Finland OYJ (Finland) v. Çukurova Holding
A.S. (Turkey)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sullivan & Cromwell
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Akinci Law Office; Lenz & Staehelin;
Tavernier Tschanz
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Geneva
NOTES: A battle in the war for control of the main Turkish cell
phone operator, Turkcell. Turkcell shareholder TeliaSonera argues
that a deal between the Turkish conglomerate Çukurova and
the Russian conglomerate Alfa over a block of Turkcell shares
breached the shareholders agreement for Turkcell Holding.
An interim award in claimant’s favor was issued in March 2008.
A related arbitration is pending in Geneva, and related litigation
is pending in the High Court of the British Virgin Islands.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.8 billion
DISPUTE: Sonera Holding BV (The Netherlands) v. Çukurova
Holding A.S. (Turkey)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Sullivan & Cromwell
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Akinci Law Office; Lenz & Staehelin;
Tavernier Tschanz
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Geneva
NOTES: Another volley in the war for control of Turkey’s leading
cell phone operator, Turkcell. In 2007 the tribunal held that
Sonera had an enforceable contract to purchase the Turkcell
Holding shares from Çukurova, controlled by Turkey’s Mehmet
Emin Karamehmet. In July 2009, the tribunal ordered Çukurova to
deliver all of its shares of Turkcell Holding to Sonera in return for a
purchase price of $3.1 billion. A unique feature of the arbitration
is that the panel, when it awarded Sonera specific performance of
the contract, also assigned a value to the contract, ruling that the
lost transaction was worth $1.8 billion to Sonera. A related arbitration is pending in Vienna, and related litigation is pending in the
High Court of the British Virgin Islands.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.8 billion (including $860 million
counterclaim)
DISPUTE: DCNS S.A. (France) v. Navantia S.A. (Spain)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Hogan Lovells
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Dechert; Uría Menéndez
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Paris
NOTES: A 15-year Franco-Spanish collaboration to build military
submarines came to a bitter end in November 2010. In addition
to the usual contractual arguments, the dispute features
accusations of trade secret violations, which Navantia denies.
The tribunal devoted its first nine months to evidence and
arguments concerning classified secrets. Final hearings were
scheduled for March 2011.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.79 billion (including $1.7 billion
counterclaim)
DISPUTE: Ceskoslovenska obchodni banka, a.s. (Czech Republic)
v. Czech Republic’s Ministry of Finance
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Baker & McKenzie
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Weil, Gotshal & Manges
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Vienna
NOTES: One of a pair of recent disputes arising out of CSOB’s
June 2000 rescue of IPB bank (Investicni a Postovni Banka a.s.
n/k/a IP Banka, a.s.). The Czech finance ministry had issued
a state guarantee to CSOB as part of its bailout of IPB. CSOB
argued that the ministry failed to honor that guarantee with
respect to some of IPB’s nonperforming loans. The ministry
counterclaimed for $1.7 billion, arguing that CSOB had acquired
IPB for far less than its real value. In December 2010, the tribunal
