Experience

• • The State of Qatar against the United Arab Emirates before the International Court of Justice concerning the application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), including twice prevailing in proceedings on provisional measures.
  • The State of Qatar in two separate proceedings against the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination under the CERD, resulting in a historic decision to constitute ad hoc Conciliation Commissions to consider Qatar’s complaints.
  • The State of Qatar in two proceedings against the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt before the International Court of Justice concerning the appeal relating to the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the International Air Services Transit Agreement.
  • A Qatari entity in investment treaty arbitrations arising out of the measures imposed by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt.
  • A Qatari entity against a US entity in an ICDR arbitration concerning the termination of a franchise agreement.
  • Gramercy Funds Management and Gramercy Peru Holdings in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of Peru under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, arising out of Peru’s measures relating to Agrarian Reform Bonds.
  • A leading steel company in the Americas in a dispute arising from an acquisition and related supply agreements.
  • A South American shipyard in an ICC arbitration against a major oil & gas company arising out of an EPC contract.
  • Investors in settling on favorable terms a dispute arising out of a subscription agreement with a leading Chilean financial services company.
  • Adel al Tamimi in an ICSID arbitration against the Sultanate of Oman relating to an investment in a limestone quarry.
  • Perenco Ecuador, prevailing on novel jurisdictional and merits issues in an ICSID arbitration arising out of the Republic of Ecuador’s unilateral increase of its participation to 99% of all revenues from oil sales above a fixed “reference price” and its declaration that Perenco’s contracts had come to an end. Perenco is now entitled to approximately US$435 million, net of cost recovery and other factors, which is the largest compensation amount that any investment tribunal has awarded against Ecuador for its imposition of Law 42.
  • A leading publicly-listed oil and gas company in enforcing a multibillion-dollar investment arbitral award against a Latin American state in the United States and worldwide.
  • Several investors and private equity funds in dealing with domestic and foreign sovereign immunity issues.
  • A major Japanese automotive corporation as claimant in consolidated ICC London arbitration proceedings concerning a multibillion euro cross-shareholding and arising out of a commercial alliance.
  • A major U.S. oil company with respect to issues with respect to its offshore concession because of a border dispute between two neighboring countries.
  • An investment manager in acquiring and settling on favorable terms a series of investment arbitration awards.
  • A leading French pharmaceutical manufacturer in settling on favorable terms a dispute arising out of a distribution agreement with a Moroccan company.
  • A major publicly-listed mining company in a dispute with an African government regarding a multibillion-dollar mining project.
  • L’Oréal in false advertising litigation against Neutrogena related to the parties’ advertisements for their respective sun screen products.
  • Deutsche Telekom in United States Department of Justice and SEC investigations relating to payments made by its Hungarian subsidiary, Magyar Telekom.
  • A pharmaceutical manufacturer in a third-party payor class action litigation.
  • A national accounting firm in U.S. Attorney's Office and SEC investigations relating to collateralized debt obligations.