Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13). Sidley successfully represented the Republic of Turkey against claims for more than US$100 million by a Dutch company under the Energy Charter Treaty and the Netherlands-Turkey bilateral investment treaty in connection with a power plant that was never constructed. The tribunal issued an award in Turkey’s favor dismissing the claims in their entirety. Claimant is now seeking annulment.
Alasdair Ross Anderson et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3). Sidley successfully represented the Republic of Costa Rica in a case brought by 135 Canadians who had invested in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme based in San José, Costa Rica. The claimants alleged that Costa Rica had failed to diligently investigate and shut down the scheme, and thereby violated the Canada-Costa Rica bilateral investment treaty. After extensive jurisdictional briefing and a hearing, the arbitral tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Canadians’ investments were not made in accordance with Costa Rican law because the scheme itself was illegal.
Archer Daniels Midland & Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas v. Mexico (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05). Case under NAFTA Chapter Eleven, in which Sidley represented Tate & Lyle, a multinational supplier of food and industrial ingredients, in a challenge to Mexico’s discriminatory taxation of products using high fructose corn syrup. The tribunal issued a final award in favor of Sidley’s client Tate & Lyle and its co-investor ADM, holding Mexico liable for violations of its NAFTA investment protection obligations.
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29). Case under the Turkey-Pakistan Bilateral Investment Treaty in which Sidley represented Bayindir in its claim in connection with a highway construction project.
Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises (Mauritius) Company v. The Government of India. UNCITRAL case stemming from India’s wrongful interference with the Dabhol power plant project in which Sidley advised General Electric and Bechtel, two leading multinational firms, on claims under the India-Mauritius bilateral investment treaty. The investors sought damages amounting to their proportional share of the US$6.6 billion going-concern value of the project. The parties reached a settlement favorable to the investors.
Cargill v. Poland. UNCITRAL case under the U.S.-Poland bilateral investment treaty in which Sidley represented Cargill, a U.S.-based multinational company, in a challenge to Poland’s imposition of quotas on isoglucose, which have adversely affected Cargill’s investment in isoglucose-processing facilities. The tribunal issued its final award in which it held that Poland’s actions breached its treaty obligation of fair and equitable treatment, as well as the treaty’s prohibitions against discriminatory treatment and national treatment, and awarded Cargill damages plus compound interest.
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3). Case filed under the France-Argentina bilateral investment treaty relating to a water services concession in Argentina. Sidley secured a nearly US$200 million award for Vivendi. Argentina sought to annul the award, but the ad hoc Committee issued a decision rejecting Argentina’s annulment request and upholding the award in favor of Vivendi under the France-Argentina BIT, including interest going back to the time of the treaty breach. First filed in December 1996, this case has been one of the longest investor-state disputes before ICSID on record. With the rejection of Argentina’s annulment request, the ICSID dispute is now concluded.
Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/28). Dispute involving an alleged breach of an agreement between Duke Energy and Sidley’s client, the Republic of Peru, arising from privatizations in the energy sector. A tribunal dismissed many of Duke’s claims, holding the Republic of Peru liable for only a fraction of the damages sought. An ad hoc Committee dismissed Peru’s request to have portions of the award annulled. Further collateral took place in national courts, and were resolved by the end of 2012.
Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Peru, S.A. v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4). Case under the Peru-Chile bilateral investment treaty in which Sidley represented the Republic of Peru in a dispute with a Chilean investor relating to a factory sited in an environmentally protected area. Sidley won a victory for Peru when the tribunal dismissed the investor’s US$150 million claim for lack of jurisdiction. The investor then sought to have the tribunal’s decision annulled; that petition was rejected, and the award in Peru’s favor was upheld in its entirety.
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/1). NAFTA case in which Sidley represented Fireman’s Fund, a U.S. insurance company, in an investment dispute with Mexico over a US$50 million investment in bonds issued by a bank holding company. The tribunal issued an award in which it concluded that Fireman’s Fund had been the victim of discriminatory treatment by Mexico but could not rule in favor of Fireman’s Fund on that ground because of technical NAFTA jurisdictional rules.
HICEE B.V. v. Slovak Republic. UNCITRAL case filed by a Dutch investor in the Slovak health insurance market under the Netherlands-Slovakia bilateral investment treaty. The dispute centered on changes in Slovak laws that prevented health insurance companies from operating on a for-profit basis.
Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3). Case in which Sidley represented Impregilo, an Italian-based multinational company, in a dispute under the Italy-Pakistan bilateral investment treaty involving a hydroelectric power project and related contracts to construct a series of canals, bridges and dams. The claimant sought approximately US$450 million in damages. After securing a favorable decision on jurisdiction, the parties reached a settlement favorable to Impregilo.
Marion Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/1) and Reinhard Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/20). Paired cases in which Sidley achieved a victory for the Republic of Costa Rica in a dispute brought by German investors under the Costa-Rica – Germany Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The investors claim that measures adopted by Costa Rica to protect the nearly-extinct baula (leatherback) sea turtle constitute breaches of the BIT. The tribunal awarded damages for the value of property that the Costa Rican authorities were already in the process of formally expropriating but dismissed all other claims.
PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5). Case in which Sidley represented the Republic of Turkey in a dispute concerning a project for the construction and operation of a lignite coal-powered electrical power plant. The tribunal issued an award dismissing the majority of claimants’ claims, holding Turkey liable for less than US$10 million in damages (out of the nearly US$500 million sought by claimants).
Quadrant Pacific Growth Fund L.P. and Canasco Holdings Inc. v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/08/1). Case in which Sidley represented the Republic of Costa Rica. Canadian investors alleged that the Government of Costa Rica breached the Costa Rica – Canada Bilateral Investment Treaty by failing to take reasonable steps to address the illegal trespass by squatters on Claimants’ property. The case proceeded all the way to the eve of the merits hearing before Claimants withdrew; the tribunal then dismissed the case and awarded costs to Costa Rica.
Renée Rose Levy de Levi v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/17). Case in which Sidley represents the Republic of Peru in defending against a US$7 billion claim by a French investor in a Peruvian bank arising out of the intervention and liquidation of the bank when it was no longer able to meet its payment obligations. A hearing on the merits and jurisdiction was held. This case is significant not only because of the substantial damages sought by the Claimant but also because the subject matter concerns the government’s discretion to react quickly and creatively in time and financial crisis.
Renée Rose Levy & Gremcitel SA v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/17). Case in which Sidley represents the Republic of Peru in defending against claims for nearly US$50 billion regarding property purchased in Peru by claimants for development, but that is in historically protected zone. . A hearing on jurisdiction and merits was held.
Spence International Investments, Llc et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica and Berkowitz et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica are consolidated UNCITRAL cases under the DR-CAFTA treaty in which U.S. investors in beachfront real estate (like the Unglaube investors noted above) challenge the Republic of Costa Rica’s actions in establishing a park to protect the nesting sites of endangered leatherback sea turtles. The tribunal was recently constituted.
Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6). Sidley represents the Republic of Peru in the annulment phase of this investment treaty arbitration case involving a Chinese investor in the fish processing industry; the case was previously handled by another firm.
Representing an Eastern European government in the successful resolution in an arbitral proceeding under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, in which a German investor advanced claims against our client under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The tribunal declined to accept jurisdiction and awarded that the claimant pay costs and fees amounting to about US$ 1.3 million.Representing a major European goods manufacturer in connection with potential investment treaty claims against Venezuela.
Representing U.S. and Canadian investors in an investment treaty claim against the Republic of Poland in the transportation sector.
Representing a U.S. consumer products manufacturer in an investment treaty arbitration against a South American government relating to regulation of the product.
Representing a U.S. investor in a potential investor-state claim against Mexico under NAFTA Chapter Eleven.