ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Montevideo
NOTES: One of three ICC arbitrations related to a cross-border
gas export project, involving Argentina’s largest oil and gas producers (Repsol’s YPF), an Argentine gas pipeline company (
Transportadora de Gas del Mercosur), a Brazilian gas marketer (Sulgas),
and a Brazilian power generator (a subsidiary of AES). The disputes
involve a series of claims, counterclaims, and cross claims.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.2 billion (including $550 million
counterclaim)
DISPUTE: YPF S.A. (Argentina) v. AES Uruguaiana Empreendimentos S.A. (Brazil), Companhia de Gas do Estado do Río Grande
Do Sul (Brazil), and Transportadora de Gas del Mercosur S.A.
(Argentina)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Pérez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen
& Martínez de Hoz Jr.
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Cabanellas, Etchebarne, Kelly &
Dell’Oro Maini; Cainzos, Fernández & Premrou
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Montevideo
NOTES: Another ICC arbitration related to a cross-border gas
export project involving Argentina’s largest oil and gas producers
(Repsol’s YPF), an Argentine gas pipeline company (
Transportadora de Gas del Mercosur), a Brazilian gas marketer (Sulgas), and
a Brazilian power generator (a subsidiary of AES). The disputes
involve a series of claims, counterclaims, and cross claims. (For
a third case, see Transportadora de Gas del Mercosur S.A. v. YPF
S.A. below.)
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.1 billion
DISPUTE: Alstom Transport SA, Marubeni Corporation, and Dogus
Insaat ve Ticaret, A.S. v. The Ministry of Transportation of the
Republic of Turkey
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: White & Case; Herbert Smith; Vinson &
Elkins; Yazici Law Offices
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: DLA Piper
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Zurich
NOTES: An ICC arbitration arising from the termination of an
engineering, procurement, and construction contract for the
Marmaray Project to upgrade Istanbul’s railway system. One of
the largest transportation infrastructure projects in the world,
Marmaray entails the construction of a tunnel under the Bosphorus
to connect the existing rail systems in Europe and Asia.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.1 billion (including $200 million
counterclaim)
DISPUTE: The Navy of the Republic of China, acting through its
Planning Bureau for and on behalf of itself and of the Republic of
China (Chinese Taipei) v. Thales S.A. (France) and Thales Naval
S.A. (France)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Dechert; Huang & Partners
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Shearman & Sterling
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Paris
NOTES: A claim for restitution of bribes allegedly paid in connection
with the sale of six frigates by Thales to Taiwan in 1991. In April
2010, the tribunal ruled that the frigate contract’s anticorruption
clause had been violated, and the vendors are liable for about
$830 million, including nearly $240 million from Thales and the
remainder from France.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $1.1 billion
DISPUTE: Danish-Polish Telecommunications Group I/S (
Denmark) v. Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (Poland)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Wolf Theiss
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Andreas Reiner & Partner; Dewey &
LeBoeuf; Linklaters
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: Ad hoc (UNCITRAL)/Vienna
NOTES: This dispute results from a contract for constructing a
telecommunication transmission system in Poland known as the
North-South Link. Danish-Polish Telecommunications (a unit of
GN Store Nord A/S) filed a claim against Poland’s largest telecom
operator (now owned by France Telecom) over the allocation of
revenue sharing. In its first phase ruling of July 2010, the tribunal
awarded Danish-Polish about $365 million (plus interest and part
of the legal costs). In the proceeding’s second phase, Danish-Polish seeks about $440 million. The respondent has moved to challenge the arbitrators, and has filed a claim in Austria to set aside
the first-phase award on grounds including the breach of Austrian
public policy. The claimant seeks enforcement of the award in
Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion
DISPUTE: Gas Terra B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Eni S.p.A. (Italy)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: ICC/Geneva
NOTES: Gas Terra has claimed an upward revision of the contract
price under a long-term gas agreement with Eni, while Eni counterclaimed a downward adjustment of the contract price. In October
2010 arbitrators decided in a partial award that the price should
be adjusted upward as claimed by Gas Terra. The extent of the
price adjustment will be determined in the second phase of the
proceedings.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion
DISPUTE: Gas Terra B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Eni S.p.A. (Italy)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: UNCITRAL/The Hague
NOTES: GasTerra has claimed an upward revision of the contract
price under a long-term gas agreement with Eni, and Eni counterclaimed a downward adjustment of the contract price. In July
2010, arbitrators decided in a partial award that the price should
be adjusted upwards as claimed by GasTerra. The extent of the
price adjustment will be determined in the second phase of the
proceedings.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: More than $1 billion
DISPUTE: Siva Ventures Limited (India) v. Maxis Communications
Berhad (Malaysia) and Global Communication Services Holdings
Ltd (Mauritius)
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL: Drew & Napier
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: Clifford Chance
ARBITRAL INSTITUTION AND SITE: SIAC/Singapore
NOTES: A dispute arising from the 2005 sale of the Indian cell
phone operator Aircel by Siva Ventures to Malaysia’s Maxis
Communications and its affiliate, Global Communication. Under
the terms of the acquisition contracts, Siva was entitled to an
upside payment under certain conditions. Siva claims that the
