International Investment Disputes

Representative Matters

• Assisting the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with the response to claims brought by the chief executive officer of a UAE-based trading company under the Sweden-UAE Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) in connection with the claimant’s alleged “unlawful deportation” from the UAE and the negative consequences it had on his investments in the country.
• Advising the Luxembourg subsidiary of a U.S. investment firm on the availability of potential claims under the Energy Charter Treaty arising out of taxation and price cap measures taken by the host state.
• Advising a Hong-Kong investor on the viability of claims under the Hong Kong, China SAR – U.K. BIT in the context of a forced divestment of shares.
• Serving as co-counsel advising a high-net-worth individual on multiple claims against a Southeast Asian State arising under a Bilateral Investment Treaty relating to significant real estate acquisition and development projects.
• Acting for a major agricultural and logistics company in an ICSID investor/state arbitration against a Central American government concerning the state’s imposition of a 20% ad valorem tax on soft drinks that contained imported corn syrup.
• Acted for the government of British Columbia in an arbitration against the United States in relation to claims of underpricing of timber and violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between Canada and the U.S. Our team convinced the arbitration tribunal at the World Bank in Washington, D.C. to dismiss all claims.
• Acted for a U.S. investor in pursuing claims under the U.S. Panama Bilateral Investment Treaty in respect of Panama’s expropriation of mining exploratory rights previously granted to our client, but subsequently withdrawn after a finding of mineral reserves valued at more than $1 billion.
• Acted for the U.S. subsidiary of the Japanese tire company Bridgestone in pursuing ICSID proceedings under the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement in respect of the indirect expropriation of intellectual property rights.
• Advising a Dutch investor in respect of claims arising out of significant real-estate holdings and developments in southeast Asia.
• Represented a large Russian investment company in connection with an expropriation by the Ukraine government of a hotel property in a UNCITRAL arbitration.
• Acted for a Russian oil company regarding investment treaty claims arising out of contracts for work done by Hungarian companies on the Yamburg and Tengiz oil & gas fields in Kazakhstan pursuant to the Agreement on Co-operation in Development of the Yamburg gas field, Construction of the Trunk Gas Pipeline Yamburg-USSR Western Border and Facilities of the Tengiz oil & gas field, as well as related gas supplies from the USSR to the People’s Republic of Hungary, between the government of the People’s Republic of Hungary and the government of the USSR, and which claims had been sold to our client.
• Acted for a major Russian oil & gas company in relation to a dispute with a Central European state concerning discrimination and expropriation of a $1-billion inward investment in the energy sector, including advice as to proposed BIT arbitration proceedings. This dispute was settled by the payment of $2.7 billion to our client in exchange for the expropriated asset.
• Represented approximately 100 financial institutions holding in excess of $33 billion of bonds, issued by three insolvent Icelandic banks Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki. The bankruptcy of these three Icelandic banks has been, collectively, the second largest bankruptcy in history, in one of the world’s smallest economies. Throughout the representation, our financial restructuring team worked hand in hand with the litigation team on a spectrum of litigation and contentious issues that arose throughout the case, which was global in nature and very complex. In particular, the team, aided by local counsel in seven overseas jurisdictions, designed and put in place a coordinated cross-border strategy to protect the interests of the creditors in the event that the Icelandic government took hostile action targeting the assets of the failed bank estates; this strategy included devising novel legal arguments under EU/EEA law, Icelandic law and the laws of various other jurisdictions; ll of the issues were resolved following an agreement that the team negotiated with the Icelandic government. This was an outstanding result and the case received recognition at The Lawyer Awards, The American Lawyer’s Global Legal Awards and The International Financial Law Review’s European Awards.
• Acted for the Republic of Poland in defending a $16-billion arbitration claim brought against it by a Dutch insurance company under the Netherlands-Poland BIT. After Akin became involved, the case settled for a fraction of the amount originally claimed.
• Represented the government of Guatemala in arbitration proceedings initiated by the U.S. under the labor chapter of the Central America-Dominican Republic-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). It was the first-ever arbitration proceeding involving the labor provisions of an FTA and only the second arbitration proceeding to have taken place under the CAFTA-DR.
• Represented a Swiss-owned company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Latvia under the Swiss Latvia BIT, arising out of the takeover of a Latvian bank by the Latvian financial authorities.
• Acted for a major Russian energy company in relation to treaty claims against Hungary concerning the expropriation of shares in the largest oil & gas company in Hungary. The case was resolved by a highly favorable settlement for our client.
• Represented a water services company, Azurix Corp., in an investment arbitration and award enforcement against the government of Argentina. The company had sought, for more than three years, to collect a $165-million international investor-state arbitration award that Argentina refused to pay, in violation of the U.S.-Argentina BIT. Our cross-practice team assisted the company by developing groundbreaking international trade policy initiatives, as well as incorporating lobbying and administrative procedure strategies. This was the first time that a company had been able to successfully enforce an investor-state arbitration award through “diplomatic protection.”
• Represented the Republic of Kazakhstan in a dispute with Biedermann International in the Stockholm International Arbitration Court over a $600-million claim that our client satisfied with a payment of less than 3% of the claim.
• Acted for a U.K. investment house in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Latin American state entity concerning allegations of expropriation, breach of international law and breach of contract. The tribunal awarded the investor $50 million in damages.
• Acted for a U.S. investor in arbitration proceedings against Belize in relation to the expropriation of an oil exploration license.
• Acted for Bridas, an Argentine corporation, where our lawyers succeeded in reversing a U.S. district court decision and obtaining an appellate ruling that a foreign government was bound by a $553-million international arbitration award (approximately $1 billion with interest) on the grounds that the government was the alter ego of the entity that had been held liable.
• Acted for the government of the Republic of Liberia in an arbitration matter worth approximately $50 million, arising out of a cancelled BOT contract to manage the country’s national port facilities.
• Represented a global investment firm in relation to an existing BIT claim (under the U.K.-India BIT) brought in relation to the acts and omissions of a majority state-owned mining company.
• Acted for a lender in a multimillion-dollar syndicated loan on potential claims (under the Netherlands-Vietnam BIT) for the failure to put in place a state guarantee.