Experience

• Investment Treaty Arbitration and other Public International Law

  • The State of Qatar and Qatari entities and individuals in international claims arising out of the measures imposed by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt against Qatar, including twice prevailing in proceedings on provisional measures before the International Court of Justice against the United Arab Emirates, and in connection with investment arbitrations and claims in other international tribunals.
  • Occidental Petroleum Company and Occidental Exploration and Production Company (“Occidental”) in an ICSID arbitration, winning one of the largest ever BIT awards, $1.1 billion ($1.4 billion including interest). The filing of the claim was made two days after Ecuador terminated all of Occidental’s exploration and production rights and seized all of its assets in the country. Ecuador and Occidental have arranged for payment of this award.
  • The Republic of Korea in ICSID arbitration filed by IPICI and Hanocal.
  • Occidental Petroleum Corporation in winning over $130 million in damages in a BIT arbitration resulting from Ecuador’s failure to refund VAT payments to Occidental.
  • ExxonMobil and Murphy Oil in a NAFTA claim against the Government of Canada arising from requirements imposed by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Tribunal handed down its Decision on Liability and on Principles of Quantum ruling in favor of our clients that Newfoundland’s regulations violated NAFTA.
  • Poštová Banka of Slovakia in investment treaty claims against Greece arising from the Greek debt restructuring.
  • Lao Holdings and Sanum Investments in BIT arbitrations against Laos arising from the termination of gaming licenses there.
  • The Government of Uzbekistan in an ICSID arbitration against claims that it violated its foreign investment law and certain supposed investment treaty obligations by imposing taxes on income from a gold mine.
  • Adel al Tamimi in an ICSID arbitration against the Sultanate of Oman relating to an investment in a limestone quarry.
  • 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.
  • African Holding Company in an ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Congo.
  • Parkerings AG in a BIT arbitration brought against the Government of Lithuania.

• Commercial Litigation

  • A leading steel company in the Americas in a dispute arising from an acquisition and related supply agreements.
  • Hyundai Heavy Industries in an ICC arbitration involving disputes between the shareholders of Hyundai Oilbank Ltd. (HDO), South Korea’s fourth largest oil refining and marketing company, winning the largest ICC award issued at the time and Global Arbitration Review’s "Arbitration Win of the Year" (2010).
  • An Asian steel manufacturer in winning a complete victory in an ICC arbitration, in which claimants sought damages in excess of $400 million for contract and tort claims arising from a failed M&A transaction.
  • General Electric in resolving disputes with multiple customers whose contracts involving sanctioned countries were cancelled when GE acquired a subsidiary. Some of the disputes led to arbitration or domestic litigation, and many others were resolved amicably.
  • A large United States consulting firm in an arbitration brought by an Italian company in Milan under the rules of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration.
  • CIMC Raffles in an AAA arbitration brought against a Brazilian company arising from investment agreements and in enforcement proceedings in NY federal court that successfully led to full payment of the award to our client.
  • GlaxoSmithKline in multiple arbitrations arising from joint development agreements, other joint venture agreements, licensing agreements, and other contracts.
  • Overseas Private Investment Corporation in many different political risk insurance coverage arbitrations.
  • A U.S. telecommunications company in winning an AAA arbitration against a European telecommunications company relating to an undersea cable in Latin America.
  • A U.S. insurance company in an arbitration in Hong Kong arising from the sale of a business to a Chinese entity.
  • A U.S. commodities trading company in an LCIA arbitration and a related litigation in the Dubai International Financial Center Court.
  • A tire manufacturing company in winning an ICDR arbitration involving a $20 million dispute over a contract to provide tires for a mining equipment manufacturer.
  • A Hong Kong-based oil and gas exploration company in a dispute arising out of a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) to develop and explore an Indonesian oil and gas block. The matter was resolved before commencement of ICC arbitration provided for in the JOA.
  • Bank of New York in a successful arbitration arising from a financial services joint venture.

• International Litigation

  • Kenneth Dart and EM against the government of Argentina over defaulted bonds in litigation in federal court in New York, in which he successfully secured a judgment in excess of $700 million and has won the only orders permitting execution of a judgment against Argentina.
  • A major U.S. oil company in defeating a multibillion dollar attachment claim under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
  • A major Middle Eastern bank in winning dismissal of an action in federal court in New York on grounds of forum non conveniens.
  • Phillip Morris International in disputes arising from intellectual property licensing agreements, in arbitrations arising from distribution contracts and with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States.
  • Korea Asset Management Corporation, an organ of the Korean government, in a derivative action originally brought in New York state court. After removing the case to the Southern District of New York, Debevoise successfully moved for dismissal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The plaintiff thereafter appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where oral argument took place in June 2006. In July 2006, the Court affirmed the lower court's FSIA dismissal by summary order.