Investor-State Arbitration

Overview

AGG represents sovereign states, state-owned entities, private investors and its attorneys have been involved in more than 40 investor-state arbitration proceedings arising under investment treaties, multilateral investment agreements, free trade agreements, and investment contracts.

Our attorneys counsel clients at every stage of the dispute lifecycle: treaty analysis and pre-dispute risk assessment, jurisdictional challenges and preliminary objections, merits and damages phases, post-award correction and annulment proceedings, and enforcement and post-award litigation in U.S. courts. We are well-versed in substantive investment treaty protections, including fair and equitable treatment, expropriation, most-favored-nation and national treatment standards of bilateral and regional investment treaties, and the Energy Charter Treaty.

Our team has achieved notable victories defending sovereign states in arbitrations administered by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”), under investment treaties with the United States, France, Belgium, India, the Netherlands, Austria, Canada, Ukraine, Ecuador, Venezuela, China, and other countries. Our experience includes jurisdictional dismissals, full victories on liability, reductions of claimed damages by more than 90-96%, and the delivery of one state’s first-ever outright victory in investor-state arbitration. On behalf of investors, our attorneys have represented private parties and state-owned enterprises in disputes arising from regulatory and legislative measures, contract breaches, denial of justice claims, and expropriation.

A member of the practice brings experience from service in the U.S. State Department, where they led the office responsible for representing the United States as respondent in NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitrations, providing diplomatic protection to U.S. investors abroad, and developing U.S. investment treaty policy. This public-sector perspective informs our deep understanding of the strategic, policy, and diplomatic dimensions that often determine the course and outcome of investor-state disputes.

Experience

  • Chevron/Texaco v. Ecuador, PCA CASE NO. 2009-23 (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in the damages phase of a landmark investment arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from a massive environmental litigation. The outcome of the case is a 93.4% reduction in damages, following a liability phase handled by another firm.*
  • Sanitek v. Armenia (ICSID) Co-lead counsel to the Republic of Armenia under the Lebanon-Armenia and Canada-Armenia BITs relating to claims under two waste management concessions.*
  • Niko Resources v. Bangladesh (ICSID) Counsel to Bangladesh and its state entities in a dispute concerning the causes and impacts of two gas blowouts. Secured environmental and gas loss compensation for Bangladesh.*
  • Ping An v. Kingdom of Belgium (ICSID) Counsel to Belgium in ICSID arbitration under the China-Belgium BIT arising from measures in the financial services sector. Secured full victory on jurisdiction.*
  • Chevron Bangladesh Block Twelve, Ltd. and Chevron Bangladesh Blocks Thirteen and Fourteen, Ltd. v. People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation Counsel to Bangladesh state entities in ICSID arbitration (until February 2026).*
  • Amorrortu v. Peru (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel until mid-2021 in arbitration under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (“USPTPA”) relating to a highway construction project. Dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.*
  • Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Ecuador (UNCITRAL) Counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from the alleged treatment of a foreign investor by the Ecuadorean judiciary.*
  • City-State NV v. Ukraine (ICSID) Lead counsel in ICSID arbitration under the Ukraine-Netherlands investment promotion and protection treaty relating to the financial sector. The claimants were awarded a fraction of the damages claimed.*
  • Louis Dreyfus Armateurs v. India (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel to the Republic of India under the India-France BIT concerning the supply and operation of cargo handling equipment in West Bengal. All claims were dismissed on the merits, delivering to India its first-ever victory in an investor-state arbitration. The tribunal awarded India $7.2 million in costs.*
  • Murphy Exploration v. Ecuador (II)(UNCITRAL) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources. Secured a 96% reduction in claimed damages.*
  • Repsol YPF v. Ecuador (ICSID) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources. The case concluded with a favorable settlement.*
  • Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador (I) (ICSID) Lead counsel to the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration under the Ecuador-U.S. BIT arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources. Dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction.*
  • Slovak Gas Holding BV, GDF International SAS & E.ON Ruhrgas International GmbH v. the Slovak Republic Co-lead counsel for the Slovak Republic in an ICSID arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from the regulation of natural gas distribution. Resulted in a settlement favorable to the Slovak Republic. *
  • Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic Lead counsel to Slovakia on intra-EU law issues in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Slovak Republic-Netherlands BIT arising from alleged measures in the health insurance sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims. The tribunal also awarded Slovakia €1.35 million in costs.*
  • European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. The Slovak Republic Co-lead counsel to Slovakia in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Slovak Republic-Austria bilateral investment treaty arising from changes in the Slovak health insurance sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims. The tribunal also awarded Slovakia €1.6 million in costs.*
  • Saint Mary’s VCNA, LLC v. Canada External reader for Canada in a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration arising from a proposed development of a quarry in Ontario.*
  • Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Canada External reader for Canada in a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration arising from the concession for the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario.*
  • Anglo American v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility) Counsel to Venezuela against a UK mining company concerning termination of a nickel concession.*
  • Gold Reserve v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility) Counsel to Venezuela against a Canadian gold mining company concerning gold concessions and environmental rights.*
  • Vannessa Ventures v. Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility) Counsel to Venezuela under the Canada-Venezuela BIT arising from cancellation of a gold mining contract. Tribunal found Venezuela not liable.*
  • Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Annulment) Counsel in stay proceedings in the defense of award enforcement efforts.*
  • Chevron/Texaco v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2007-02/AA277 (UNCITRAL) Lead counsel in a PCA/UNCITRAL arbitration brought by Chevron Corp. alleging denial of justice under seven Ecuadorian court decisions in contract disputes, leading to a 96% reduction in claimed damages.*
  • Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States against a Canadian mining company alleging regulatory expropriation under federal and California laws.*
  • Canadian Lumber Producers v. United States (UNCITRAL, four cases) Represented the United States in four successful UNCITRAL proceedings, including one first-ever consolidated case, brought by Canadian lumber producers (Canfor, Tembec and Terminal Forest Products) challenging the application of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws.*
  • Methanex v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits against a Canadian methanol company regarding legislation banning use of a methanol-based gasoline additive.*
  • Loewen v. United States (ICSID AF) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits and jurisdiction in a path-setting case arising from allegations of denial of justice.*
  • Canadian Cattle Producers v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States in successful defense against 109 Canadian cattle producers challenging the closure of the U.S.-Canada border following a mad cow disease outbreak.*
  • Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd v. United States (UNCITRAL) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits against a Canadian tobacco company’s claim that the U.S. master tobacco settlement violated the expropriation and national treatment provisions of NAFTA.*
  • Mondev v. United States (ICSID AF) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits in a case brought by a commercial real estate development company alleging expropriation.*
  • ADF v. United States (ICSID AF) Represented the United States in successful defense on the merits in ICSID Additional Facility proceedings against a construction subcontractor alleging that national content requirements violated the NAFTA Investment Chapter.*
  • Protiva v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented claimant heirs in successful arbitration claims for the expropriation of a Tehran office building.*
  • Ghaffari Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. principal in successful arbitration claims for the expropriation of his ownership interest in an architectural and engineering firm.*
  • Birnbaum Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. principal in successful arbitration claims for the expropriation of his ownership interest in an architectural and engineering firm.*
  • Baker International v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented U.S. oil supply company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of oilfield assets in Iran.*
  • Computer Sciences Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. technology firm in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of rights under a computer services contract.*
  • Development & Resources Corp. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. development company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of a project development contract.*
  • Howard, Needles, Tammen, & Bergendoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a major U.S. construction company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of a major highway construction assets.*
  • Bendone DiRossi v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) Represented a U.S. uniform manufacturing company in a successful arbitration claim for the expropriation of rights under a military supply contract.*

*Representative matters handled while practicing at another law firm.

    Related Services

    Primary Contacts
    View All Professionals