To avoid expensive court litigation and ensure a fair playing field in disputes with foreign companies or governments, many corporations rely on arbitration clauses. Although international arbitration has grown more complex, it remains a more effective and less costly option than national courts for many types of international business disputes. Globalization also has led to increased use of international dispute resolution. Our International Arbitration & Dispute Resolution group helps clients develop and implement strategies to achieve their objectives in international disputes.
We deliver strategic advice and legal representation to clients involved in complex and high-stakes disputes around the globe. Our lawyers have extensive experience representing clients in international arbitrations, as well as in various international dispute resolution fora, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).
- Acting as lead counsel in an ICC arbitration proceeding to defend a state-owned telecommunications company against a claim seeking $7 million in damages regarding the installation of a country-wide wireless phone system. The arbitrators issued an award in favor of the client, dismissing claims and awarding no damages.
- Serving as lead counsel to a premier international philanthropic organization in an ICC proceeding against a foreign sovereign. The dispute involved payments due with respect to inbound investment used in rebuilding education infrastructure. After a full hearing, the arbitrators issued an award in favor of the client in excess of $1.2 million, plus full attorneys’ fees and all costs of the arbitration, including compensation.
- Serving as lead counsel in an AAA/ICDR proceeding, defending a major international oil company in a $12 million dispute over the payment of Gabonese taxes on African oil operations. After a full hearing, the client’s liability was reduced by 50 percent.
- Acting as lead counsel for the owner/developer in a $10 million contract dispute between the owner/developer of gold and silver mines in Latin America and the construction engineer and manager. The construction engineer commenced a separate arbitration seeking $1.9 million in payments. The two related proceedings were administered by AAA/ICDR rules. Our lawyers obtained a favorable settlement for the client.
- Representing the owner/developer of an electrical generation and distribution concession in Ecuador as lead counsel in a contract dispute regarding breach of the sale and development agreement. After a full AAA/ICDR hearing, we obtained an award for breach of contract in favor of the client in excess of $2 million, plus interest, full costs of proceedings and attorneys’ fees.
- Representing a Belgian supplier in an AAA/ICDR proceeding regarding a contract dispute with its U.S. distributor.
- Representing a pharmaceutical company as lead counsel in an ICC proceeding arising from a dispute concerning the purchase and sale of a pharmaceutical distribution company/network in CIS states. After a full hearing, we obtained an award favorable to the client.
- Representing an Indian-controlled outsourcing company in an AAA arbitration proceeding regarding a dispute with the former CEO and minority shareholder who claimed the payout under an LLC agreement was undervalued.
- Representing the Thai Office of the Attorney General regarding the ICC arbitration and U.S. court proceedings brought by Walter Bau, a German company, and its receiver.
- Representing the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration regarding its dispute with Steyr-Daimler-Puch over a contract to supply firefighting equipment.
- Advising a major U.S. stakeholder and persuading USTR to initiate a dispute with China regarding restrictions on the marketing and sale of and investment in financial information services, leading to a U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding. We provided continuing advice regarding the monitoring of compliance with the MOU. (China – Measures Affecting Financial Information Services and Foreign Financial Information Suppliers (DS373))
- Advising the government of Korea and one of the largest Korean semiconductor manufacturers in an important test of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, obtaining a significant victory before the WTO panel. (U.S.– Countervailing Duty Measures Concerning Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea (DS296))
- Representing the governments of Brazil, Japan and Korea in a complex case involving consolidated WTO challenges to the U.S. safeguard measures on steel, resulting in the withdrawal of the measures. (U.S.– Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (DS248/249/251-54/258/259/274))
- Representing Korea and Japan in their successful challenge to the U.S. “Byrd Amendment,” a proceeding that defined the actions a member may take against dumping. (U.S.– Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (DS217/234))