Maude Lebois is a partner in the International Arbitration practice.

She has 15 years of experience advising on arbitration and projects worldwide, with a particular focus on Africa. She has represented States, State-owned entities and companies in international commercial and investment treaty arbitrations, ad hoc (including under UNCITRAL Rules) and under the Rules of the ICC and ICSID. An important part of Maude's work also consists of contract and claim management within the firm's construction practice.

• Sonatrach, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Geneva brought by Saipem SpA and Saipem Contracting Algérie SpA. The dispute arose from an EPC contract for the construction of gas liquefaction facilities. Algerian law applied. Over €2.6 billion was at stake.
• An international organization, Claimant in an ICC arbitration against a consortium of European contractors. The dispute arises from a FIDIC contract for the upgrading of sewerage and water distribution networks and associated pumping stations.
• A major North African company on all aspects of the negotiations for the construction, financing and development in Algeria of one of the world’s largest petrochemical plants, and the setting up of several joint ventures to handle the various aspects of this multi-billion project.
• A privately-owned Algerian company in negotiation for the acquisition of shares of an energy company from a private financial services group active in the Middle East, and in an arbitration proceeding initiated in parallel to the negotiation process.
• The Government of an African country in the development of shale gas activities and negotiations with a potential investor.
• A North African company, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Geneva initiated by an Iberian contractor. The dispute related to a major infrastructure project in North Africa. The law of the Respondent’s State applied.
• An African State-owned energy producer, Respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva initiated by the African subsidiary of a large North American energy company. The dispute arose from a unitization agreement in relation to a petroleum field. The law of the Respondent’s State applied. Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars were at stake.
• An African State-owned energy producer in conciliation proceedings with a large North American energy company. The dispute was in relation to the adoption by the host State of new tax legislation (windfall profit tax).
• Electricité de France (EDF), Claimant in a UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Hungary. The dispute arose from the termination of Power Purchase Agreements put in place during the privatization of the electricity sector. The claims were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty.
• The Republic of Gabon, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration brought by Participaciones Inversiones Portuarias Sarl (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/17). The dispute, which was brought under the Belgium Luxembourg-Gabon bilateral investment treaty, arose out of a concession to manage two Gabonese ports.
• Algeria’s Fonds National d’Investissement (FNI), a strategic investment fund, on the acquisition of a 51% stake in Omnium Télécom Algérie SpA (“OTA” or “Djezzy”, formerly known as Orascom Télécom Algérie SpA) from Global Telecom Holding (“GTH”), a subsidiary of the VimpelCom group, for a price of $2.643 billion.
• The Democratic Republic of Algeria in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Mærsk Olie, Algeriet A/S (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/14). The arbitration, which was brought under the Algeria-Denmark bilateral investment treaty, was in relation to windfall profit tax in the context of a production-sharing contract. Over $3 billion was at stake.
• Sonatrach in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva against Repsol and Gas Natural. The dispute arose from delays in the completion of an integrated project including the development of existing gas fields, the construction of a liquefaction gas plant and upstream facilities, and the commercialisation of the liquefied gas. The applicable law was Algerian law and the proceedings were conducted in French. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the termination of the agreement by Sonatrach was lawful and justified, and that Sonatrach was entitled to keep all of the equipment, installations and works completed (valued at $580 million) before the termination of the agreement. The Tribunal also dismissed the Respondents’ $3.1 billion counterclaim in its entirety.

Professional Affiliations

• Moderator, Arbitrage-ADR discussion list
• Member, Belgium Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI)
• Member, International Arbitration Institute (IAI)
• Member, Young Women in Energy
• Member, Women in Energy
• Member, Réseau International des Juristes Africanistes (International Network of Africanist Lawyers)