Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Lacoste, Anne-Marie
Direct Tel: +33 1 7344 6003
Paris
Tel: +33 1 73 44 60 00 Fax: +33 1 73 44 61 00

Anne-Marie Lacoste is of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Paris office. She joined the firm in 2013. Prior to joining Quinn Emanuel, Anne-Marie worked in the international arbitration group of a major law firm.

She has represented clients in a number of international arbitrations, both ad hoc (including under the UNCITRAL Rules) and under the rules of major arbitration centers (ICC, ICSID, AFA, etc.).  She also represents clients in arbitration-related proceedings before French courts.

Anne-Marie also acts as arbitrator.

Her experience includes commercial and investment  disputes, in particular international arbitrations in oil & gas, construction, transportation, banking, automotive, and IT sectors.  She also worked on expert proceedings related to gas price reviews. 

Anne-Marie was listed in Who’s Who Legal (France) 2019 in the Energy sector.  In 2020, she was ranked as National Leader in the Energy sector (France) by Who’s Who Legal, which indicated that she “impresses sources with her sweeping knowledge of energy disputes in arbitration proceedings”.  In 2020, Anne-Marie was also ranked as Rising Star in commercial arbitration by Expert Guides.

In 2020, Anne-Marie was named as co-chair of the French Arbitration Committee’s under-40 group, CFA40.

  • Counsel to the Republic of Azerbaijan in ICSID Case No. ARB/18/6 initiated by a Turkish investor on the basis of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the Reciprocal Protection and Promotion of Investments.  The dispute is over the construction of sewage tunnels in the Baku region.  The value of the dispute is in excess of 100 million USD. 
  • Counsel to a major company in the automotive industry against another major in the same industry in an ICC arbitration in the context of a post-M&A dispute.  The seat of the arbitration is Geneva and the language is English.  The dispute value is in excess of 200 million USD.   
  • Counsel to Sonatrach in an ICC arbitration initiated by Sonatrach against Technip France,[1] a French multinational company of the energy industry specializing in project management, engineering, and construction.  The seat of the arbitration was Geneva.  The dispute pertained to delays in a contract for the rehabilitation and adaptation of a refinery near Algiers, as well as issues related to contract termination.  A parallel procedure was filed with the ICC by Technip against Sonatrach. Consolidation was requested and obtained.  The dispute value was in excess of USD 1.3 billion.  The case was settled.
  • Counsel to an Italian energy company as claimant in an ICC arbitration against the Republic of Albania.  The seat of the arbitration is Paris.  The dispute arises out of a concession agreement for the construction of a power plant in Albania.  The dispute stems from Albania’s refusal to provide refunds for taxes paid by the claimant and the imposition of additional taxes on them, as well as repeated lengthy tax audits and penalties, in breach of the stabilization provisions in the contract.  The Italian energy company also requests termination of the concession agreement.  Albania introduced a counterclaim on the delays in the construction of the plant.  The dispute value is in excess of EUR 285 million.
  • Counsel to Sonatrach in an ICC arbitration initiated by Thales Communications & Securities and Secur Technologies.[2]  The dispute related to two EPC contracts for the installation of security systems designed to ensure the security of pipelines and revolved around scheduling and delays.  The seat of the arbitration was Paris.  The dispute value was in excess of USD 50 million.
  • Counsel to a major in agribusiness as respondent in an arbitration commenced by a joint venture partner in relation with a project related to the construction and operation of a plant in Ukraine.  The arbitration was conducted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the seat of the arbitration was London.  English law was applicable.  The arbitration was related to the liability of our client in the delays of the project.  The dispute value was of USD 135 million.  The claims were entirely dismissed, which was a complete victory for the major in agribusiness.   
  • Counsel to a Middle-Eastern construction company, in an ICC arbitration against a French bank with respect to the termination by the bank of a financing agreement for a construction project in the Middle-East.  The seat of the arbitration was Paris and French law was applicable. 
  • Counsel to Sonatrach as respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration seated in Geneva initiated by Anadarko Algérie Co. LLC et Maersk Olie, Algeriet AS[3].  The dispute pertained to the interpretation of contractual provisions relating to a tax on exceptional profits and provisions related to tax stabilization in a production sharing agreement.  The dispute value was in excess of USD 11 billion.  The case was settled.
  • Counsel to the Republic of Algeria as respondent in an ICSID arbitration against Maersk Olie et Algeriet A/S (ICSID No. ARB/09/14).[4]  Introduced on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty between Algeria and Denmark, the arbitration pertained to a tax on exceptional profits applicable to a production sharing agreement.  The dispute value was in excess of USD 3 billion.  The case was settled.
  • Counsel to the subsidiary of a European energy company in an arbitration under the auspices of the AFA, as well as expert determination proceedings against another European energy company in connection with a long-term gas supply agreement.  The dispute revolves around the interpretation of the price review provision and the respective scopes of the arbitration and the expert determination proceedings.  French law was applicable.  The Tribunal declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the issues related to contract interpretation, which was a significant victory for our client.  Further, the final decision rendered by the experts’ panel awarded the opposing party only a quarter of the damages it sought.  The amount in issue exceeded EUR 430 million.  This was a significant victory for our client.
  • Counsel to an Italian energy company as claimant in an ICC arbitration against an Eastern European State.  The seat of the arbitration is Paris.  The dispute arises out of a concession agreement for the construction of a power plant in the same State, and relates to the direct expropriation of the Claimant in breach of contractual provisions.  The dispute value is in excess of EUR 103 million.
  • Counsel to a European transportation company in a dispute with two European railway companies, both before French courts and an ICC arbitral tribunal. The dispute arose from a complex contractual framework and was related to business interruption losses incurred by the Railways. The dispute raised complex legal issues relating to the interaction between arbitral and court proceedings.  The case was settled.
  • Counsel to the Republic of Algeria in an arbitration against Orascom Telecom Holding SAE (OTH), « Djezzy » (which became Global Telecom Holding SAE)[5].  The arbitration was conducted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and was administered by the PCA in The Hague.  Introduced on the basis of the bilateral investment treaty between Algeria and Egypt, the arbitration pertained to alleged breaches of this treaty with respect notably to the application of a foreign exchange law, tax issues, as well as the commencement of criminal proceedings before the Algerian courts.  The dispute value was in excess of USD 16 billion.  The case was settled.
  • International Academy for Arbitration Law
    (Certificate, 2012)
  • University of Paris II
    (Master 2 Recherche Droit international privé et du commerce international, 2010)
  • University of Ottawa
    (LL.B. Common Law, 2005)
  • The Hague Academy of International Law
    (Certificate, 2004)
  • University of Montreal
    (LL.B. Civil Law, 2004)
    • First Prize, Sopinka Cup (National Moot Court Competition, Canada)
The Paris Bar; The Quebec Bar
  • French
  • English
  • Shearman & Sterling LLP, Paris:
    • Associate, 2010-2012
  • Listed in Who’s Who Legal (France) 2019 & 2020 in the Energy sector

  • Identified as Rising Star in commercial arbitration by Expert Guides

  • “The Duty to Raise all Arguments Related to the Same Facts in a Single Proceeding: Can we Avoid a Second Bite at the Cherry in International Arbitration?”, Paris Journal of International Arbitration/Cahiers de l’arbitrage, 2013, vol. 2, pp. 349-380.
  • “Corruption as a Bar to Award Enforcement in France”, 36 ASA Bulletin 1/2018 (March), pp. 31-52