Representative International Representations:

PSAs, PSCs, Concession Agreements:

• We represented local subsidiaries of the ExxonMobil and Petronas groups as member of a consortium involved in a dispute against the Republic of Chad over the nation’s attempt to levy a statistical tax on crude oil exports by the consortium in violation of the provision of two conventions entered into by the parties for the production and export of crudes. The amount in controversy was USD 77 billion, and Chad had sought relief in its own national courts in violation of the arbitration agreements of the conventions and a local court had ordered our clients to immediately pay over USD 800 million even as an appeal was pending.  We filed an ICC arbitration and first obtained ex parte super provisional measures (later confirmed after a hearing) enjoining Chad from seeking enforcement of the local court decision, followed by a partial award in which the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the dispute.  In parallel to the arbitration effort, the parties settled the dispute.
• We represent a North African National Oil Company in ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings against a North African company, claiming termination of two contracts for the exploration, development, and production of gas/oil fields. The procedure was bifurcated into three phases: jurisdiction, merits, and quantum. Quinn Emanuel won the first two phases for its client and is now engaging in the third phase. The award on the merits gave right to our client on all grounds. The amount in dispute is approximately USD 2.5 billion. The seat of arbitration is Geneva.
• We advise a global petroleum company and an investment company owned by an Arab Emirate in connection with the potential withdrawal from various contracts entered into with a Middle Eastern Government for the development of an oil field. Our client lost around US$1 billion on the project as of 2014 and losses are projected to amount to US$5 billion by the end of the contract period.  We are advising them on the consequences of withdrawing from their contracts with the local Government.
• We represent a leading European oil company in a series of disputes concerning PSA interests in Yemen, each worth several $100 million and all against the challenging legal and factual environment prevailing in that State.
• We represent a major Asian National Oil Company in arbitration proceedings (seated in Lagos) against the Nigerian State concerning significant cost recovery issues and lifting disputes under the terms of the relevant PSAs. Several billion dollars are at stake.

JOAs, JVAs and related Agreements:

• We represented the owner of an oil-producing property in a negligence action against the operator of an adjacent oil-producing property. After a seven-week trial, the jury awarded our client its full damages and prejudgment interest totaling$120 million. 
• One of our partners acted for Chevron in its defense of Total’s claim that their joint venture managing company was liable for the £1 billion costs of the Buncefield oil depot explosion and that, alternatively, Chevron was obliged to indemnify Total for its liability for those costs.
• We represented Barra Energia in an international arbitration concerning a consortium agreement for an oil project in Brazil.  The arbitration was commenced by Dommo Energia after Barra Energia issued a withdrawal notice requiring Dommo Energia to exit the consortium for non-payment of its share of the consortium’s costs and expenses.  In three arbitration awards, the tribunal upheld the validity of Barra Energia’s notice and ruled that it could not be nullified under Brazilian law.  The tribunal also held that Dommo Energia was not entitled to any compensation even though it was required to exit the consortium and transfer its interest in the consortium to the remaining parties at no cost.

Unitization agreements:

• One of our partners represented a North African NOC against a consortium of foreign companies in an UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva applying Algerian law arising from the impact of a unitization agreement on an existing production sharing agreement. A settlement was achieved.
• One of our partners represented the owners of the Nelson field in relation to proceedings arising out of an expert’s equity redetermination process under the Nelson Field Unitization Agreement in Svenska and Neste v. Shell, Esso, Enterprise and Enterprise Elf.
• One of our partners represented an international oil company in expert and arbitration proceedings relating to an equity redetermination for a unitized field offshore of West Africa.
• A member of our team was counsel for an African national oil company in an UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva initiated by an international oil company arising from an unitization agreement. Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars were in dispute.

Transportation/Storage Agreements (pipelines, etc.):

• We represented German gas company Uniper in an international arbitration against global gas giant Gazprom Export. Uniper suffered damages of over USD 14 billion due to Gazprom Export’s decision to not deliver any gas to Germany anymore. We obtained a full win of over USD 14 billion in addition to a confirmation of a right to terminate the gas delivery contracts.
• We represent a European subsidiary of a major oil company in two related arbitrations. The dispute concerns the suspension of shipments to a European refinery by three shipping companies. The pipeline company supplying the refinery initiated a joint arbitration against the shipping companies in their capacities as shareholders of the pipeline, and individual arbitrations against each shipping company as client of the pipeline.  The total amount in dispute is around EUR 100 million.
• One of our partners acted for Chevron Nigeria Ltd. in Interpleader proceedings in which an English court upheld for the first time a purchaser’s equitable lien under a contract for work and materials.

Agreements with Contractors (drilling etc.):

• We represented Vantage Deepwater Company and Vantage Deepwater Drilling, Inc. in an ICDR arbitration against Petrobras America Inc., Petrobras Venezuela Investments & Services, BV, and Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras (together, “Petrobras”) concerning Petrobras’s improper early termination of an eight-year deepwater drilling contract. A majority of the Tribunal rejected Petrobras’s contentions that termination was proper due to purported operational failures and that the contract was void or voidable for being procured by bribery.  The Tribunal awarded Vantage $622 million in benefit-of-the-bargain damages, plus post-judgment interest.  Petrobras challenged the award, arguing that the tribunal had not properly considered whether or not that contract was procured through bribery. In May of 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas rejected this argument and confirmed the award, and Petrobras was forced to pay our clients over $700 million.
• We represent a major European energy company acting as Respondents in an ICC arbitration initiated by a major engineering company on the basis of a frame agreement for engineering studies. The engineering company asserts that the Respondents used confidential information to obtain a patent on a deepwater drilling method and to use this method in an exploration and production project in Congo.  The Respondents submitted counterclaims, also based on the use and disclosure by the engineering company of the confidential information it provided.
• We represent a major European energy company in an ICC arbitration against a global offshore engineering and construction contractor regarding ownership of intellectual property under French law in high value drilling and extraction technology.  The amount in dispute is in excess of USD 200 million.
• We represent an international oil and gas services company based in the UK with respect to pre-arbitration issues in a potential dispute with an African State-owned oil company.  The potential dispute arose out of a contract for the provision and operation of an oil rig.  The UK company claimed that the State-owned oil company had failed to pay a number of invoices, whereas the State-owned oil company threatened a counterclaim based on contractual liability for a technical incident on the rig.
• We represented a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum in a price-fixing antitrust action against the provider of fuel necessary to operate its drilling pumps.  The case settled for a multi-million dollar payment shortly after it was filed. 

Long-term Gas Supply Agreements (other than price reviews): 

• We represented a leading European energy distributor in an ICC arbitration against a leading European gas supplier in connection with a medium-term gas supply agreement.  The dispute concerned the validity under New York law of the termination of the agreement by application of a hardship provision. We obtained a complete victory  for our client.  The tribunal dismissed all of Claimant’s claims (totaling USD 100 million), including an unrelated claim for payment of contested invoices. 
• One of our partners acted for the six owners of the CATS North Sea gas pipeline, Amoco (UK) Exploration Co. and Ors, in a send-or-pay dispute with Enron through which Enron sought to avoid paying for pipeline capacity and ultimately to escape its obligations under the J-Block gas take or pay agreements.
• We represented Edison in a major gas supply dispute against Eni in connection with a long-term gas supply agreement in the Italian gas market. We obtained an arbitral award retroactively reducing by more than EUR 1 billion (without interest) the price paid by our client Edison, which represented over 97% of Edison’s claim.  ‎This billion-dollar victory is one of the largest amounts ever awarded in a price review arbitration.

Gas Price reviews:

• We represent a North African NOC in a price review arbitration against a leading European gas supplier arising out of a long term gas sale and purchase agreement. The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of the ICC and the seat of the arbitration is Geneva.  The amount of the dispute is in excess of USD 750 million.
• We represented a major European energy company in an ICC dispute arising from its termination of a medium-term take-or-pay gas supply agreement entered into with a major European gas seller. The seller’s claims totaled USD 100 million. The arbitral tribunal sided with our client on every issue, rejected all of the seller’s claims, and thus confirmed the validity of the termination.
• We represented a major European energy company in a price review arbitration and expert determination proceeding against another major European energy company. We secured the suspension of the expert determination proceeding and an award on jurisdiction dismissing the counterparty’s objection to jurisdiction.  Following that decision, and while the amount claimed against our client exceeded EUR 430 million, the final decision rendered by the experts’ panel awarded the other company only a quarter of the damages it sought.  This was a significant victory for our client.

Long-term Electricity contracts:

• We represented a European energy company in a EUR 700 million ICC arbitration applying Italian law against a financial institution arising out of a failed joint-venture project in Central Europe. We achieved a favorable settlement.
• One of our partners acted for TXU Europe Energy Trading Ltd. in defense of claims for alleged breach of two long term “Virtual Power Station” agreements valued by Enron at £1.2 billion.

Energy infrastructures (construction type disputes):

• We represent a North African National Oil Company in a major ICC arbitration in relation with the construction and exploitation of an oil and gas plant by an Italian contractor. The dispute arose out of additional costs allegedly incurred by the contractor during the execution of the EPC project.  The dispute exceeds USD 500 million and relates to an infrastructure project valued in excess of USD 1.7 billion.
• We achieved a groundbreaking victory for our client Santos (one of Australia’s leading oil and gas companies) in the Federal Court of Australia against three applicants who are Indigenous people from the Tiwi Islands, represented by the Environmental Defenders Office. The Santos-operated Barossa Gas Project is a $5.8 billion offshore gas and condensate project and its financial viability was at serious risk pending the outcome of the proceeding. The judgment was particularly noteworthy as it was the first time that many of the provisions in the Regulations, that were relied upon by the Applicants, had been judicially considered. The Court dismissed the applicants case entirely. The judgment represented not only a significant win for Santos but also set new precedent as to the proper construction of the Regulations and is consequently a very important judgment for the offshore oil and gas industry in Australia.
• We represented a North African National Oil Company in an ICC arbitration initiated against a French multinational company of the energy industry specialized in project management, engineering, and construction. The amount in dispute exceeded USD 3.5 billion and related to delays in an Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for the rehabilitation and adaptation of a refinery in North Africa.  A parallel procedure was filed also with the ICC by the French company.  Consolidation was requested and obtained.  We achieved a favorable settlement.

Investment Disputes:

Oil & Gas

• One of our partners represented the majority shareholders in former Yukos Oil Company as claimants in a series of three PCA arbitrations against the Russian Federation concerning the expropriation of their investment in the company. The claims were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty, a multilateral convention governing trade and investment in the energy sector.  These cases attracted significant attention in the arbitration community due to the size of the claim, the identity of the parties and the political context surrounding the Yukos matter.  In July 2014, the arbitral tribunal ordered the Russian Federation to pay damages in excess of USD 50 billion to Yukos majority shareholders.  This was the largest arbitral award ever obtained as of that date.
• We obtained three victories in Russia for a prominent Ukrainian businessman, Dmitry Firtash. The dispute concerned control over EMFESZ, a leading Hungarian gas trader with annual turnover of over $1 billion. We won a Russian arbitration for entitlement to trader’s shares and also succeeded in two related Russian litigations, where the courts upheld our cornerstone legal argument and refused to set aside the award.
• We represented the Republic of Azerbaijan in ICSID proceedings under the Energy Charter Treaty involving an alleged investment in Azpetrol, Azerbaijan’s largest downstream petroleum company, and Azertrans, an oil transportation and transshipment company. Claimants agreed to a “drop hands” settlement following the State’s application to dismiss the claims on grounds that, through acts of corruption, the claimants had violated transnational public policy.
• We represented a North American oil and gas company in proceedings under the Germany-Venezuela BIT and Canada-Venezuela BIT concerning interference with its interests in a field in the Orinoco. We achieved a favorable lump-sum settlement.
• We represented GasTransBoliviano in proceedings against the Republic of Bolivia concerning interference with the operation and taxation of a natural gas pipeline. We achieved a favorable settlement.

Electricity & Power

• We represent Italian investors Hydro S.r.l. and others as claimants in an ICSID arbitration, with an amount in dispute in excess of USD 350 million, against the Republic of Albania under the Italy-Albania bilateral investment treaty. The dispute relates to an electricity generation venture, in which Albania undertook expropriation measures and other actions amounting to breach of fair and equitable treatment. In this arbitration, the Tribunal issued a historical decision on provisional measures ordering Albania to suspend its criminal proceedings against the claimants and to withdraw the extradition proceedings that it brought in the United Kingdom.
• We represented several Italian investors, including the most important waste treatment consortium in Italy (M. Angelo Novelli, Costruzioni S.r.l.) and their Albanian operation company (Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k.), as claimants in an ICSID arbitration against the Republic of Albania. The claim is brought under the Energy Charter Treaty and its amount exceeds USD 400 million.‎ The dispute arose out of Albania’s failure to execute and perform a concession agreement entered into with the Albanian operation company for the construction of an integrated center for the treatment of waste and production of electrical energy.
• We represented the Republic of Slovenia in a pending ICSID dispute involving a nuclear power plant operation.  We achieved dismissal of the Energy Charter Treaty claims in a preliminary ruling.
• We represented the CDC Group against the Republic of Seychelles in ICSID proceedings involving an energy contract.  We achieved success on the merits following a cost-effective and strategic application for a preliminary determination and defeated respondents’ subsequent application for annulment.
• We represented the Republic of Panama in its first ever ICSID dispute, which was filed by three U.S. investors and involved a thermal power plant operation.  We achieved dismissal of all claims after a full hearing on the merits and obtained an award taxing costs against the Claimants and in favor Panama.

Regulatory and Environment

• We represented an international consortium in a number of disputes with Russian environmental authorities regarding a major project worth several billions of U.S. dollars.