"Clients describe the team's output as ‘the pinnacle of excellence.’"
―Chambers Global, 2017
Shearman & Sterling is a market leader in international investment arbitration. Our team has represented parties in such disputes for more than 25 years. We were one of the very first law firms involved in this developing field of law and have been at the heart of some of the most groundbreaking investment arbitration cases. We represent both investors and States in arbitrations arising under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. Partners of our firm also regularly serve as arbitrators and as legal experts. A highlight of our experience as counsel in investment arbitrations includes the representation of:
- The Republic of Panama as Respondent in an ICSID arbitration brought by Omega Engineering LLC and Mr. Oscar Rivera (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/42). The dispute relates to infrastructure construction projects. The claims are brought under both the US-Panama bilateral investment treaty and trade promotion agreement.
- Cairn Energy PLC in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of India. The claims are brought under the UK-India bilateral investment treaty. The dispute relates to retrospective tax measures adopted by the Indian Government. Over USD 5.5 billion is at stake.
- The Republic of Lithuania as Respondent in an ICSID arbitration brought by Veolia Environnement S.A. and others in relation to district heating and power generation systems in Lithuania (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/3). The claims are brought under the Lithuania-France bilateral investment treaty.
- Ukraine as Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Emergofin B.V. and Velbay Holdings Ltd. under the Netherlands-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/35). The dispute relates to an aluminium and alumina production company.
A leading European energy group in a dispute against the Kingdom of Spain under the Energy Charter Treaty. The dispute relates to the measures taken by Spain in the renewable energy sector.
- The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria as Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l. (formerly known as Weather Investments II S.à r.l.) (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35). The dispute relates to alleged breaches of the Algeria-Belgium-Luxembourg bilateral investment treaty in relation to the operation of a mobile telephone company in Algeria. Over USD 5 billion is at stake.
- The Arab Republic of Egypt as Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Ampal-American Israel Corporation and other investors (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11) concerning alleged violations of investors’ rights under the U.S.-Egypt and the Germany-Egypt bilateral investment treaties. The investment concerns a long term contract for the supply of natural gas.
- The Republic of Croatia, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. under the Austria-Croatia bilateral investment treaty (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39). The dispute relates to a food products enterprise.
- The majority shareholders in the former Yukos Oil Company as Claimants in a series of three arbitrations against the Russian Federation in relation to the expropriation of their investment in the company. The claims were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty, a multilateral treaty governing trade and investment in the energy sector. The arbitrations were conducted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and were administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. In an Interim Award of November 20, 2009, the Arbitral Tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction over the dispute and that the claims were admissible. In a Final Award rendered on July 18, 2014, the Arbitral Tribunal ordered the Russian Federation to pay over USD 50 billion in damages to our clients, which makes this the largest arbitral award ever rendered by an arbitral tribunal. The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent to reimburse to our clients 75% of the legal fees they had incurred in these proceedings, as well as 100% of the arbitration costs.
- The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria as Respondent in an UNCITRAL arbitration initiated by Global Telecom Holding SAE (formerly known as Orascom Telecom Holding). The dispute arose from alleged breaches of the Egypt-Algeria bilateral investment treaty in relation to the operation of a mobile telephone company in Algeria. Over USD 16 billion was at stake.
- Electricité de France (EDF) as Claimant in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Hungary. The dispute aroses from the termination of the Power Purchase Agreements put in place during the privatization of the electricity sector. The claims were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty. Hundreds of millions of US dollars were at stake.
- The Republic of Venezuela as Respondent in four ICSID arbitrations brought by Vestey Group Ltd. (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/4), Koch Minerals Sàrl and Koch Nitrogen International Sàrl (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/19), O.I. European Group B.V. (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25) and Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, C.A. and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, C.A. (ICSID CaseNo. ARB/12/21) under the Venezuela-UK, Venezuela-Switzerland and Venezuela-Netherlands bilateral investment treaties.
- Viorel Micula as Claimant in an ICSID arbitration initiated by our client and others against the Republic of Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20). The dispute, which was brought under the Sweden-Romania bilateral investment treaty, arose out of the cancellation and withdrawal of a favorable customs and tax regime by the Republic of Romania in relation to a food products enterprise. The Arbitral Tribunal rendered a USD 250 million award in favor of the Claimants - one of the largest awards ever issued by an ICSID tribunal.
- Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd in proceedings initiated before an ICSID ad hoc Committee for the annulment of the Award on Jurisdiction rendered in a dispute against the Government of Malaysia brought under the UK-Malaysia bilateral investment treaty (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10). The Committee annulled the Award, holding that the Sole arbitrator had committed a manifest excess of powers by declining jurisdiction over the matter.