Arbitration-related litigation

We appeared in the UK Supreme Court, on behalf of the ICC Court of Arbitration, as interveners in Halliburton Company (Appellant) v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (Formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) (Respondent).  

The UK Supreme Court considered (i) whether an arbitrator can accept appointments in multiple references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party, without giving rise to an appearance of bias; and (ii) whether and to what extent he/she may do so without disclosing the parallel appointments.

The Court confirmed that arbitrators in London-seated arbitrations are legally obliged to disclose such appointments. It went on to clarify the circumstances in which accepting, and failing to disclose, multiple appointments in overlapping references with only one common party may give rise to an appearance of bias.  

The Supreme Court’s decision on these important points of principle largely reflected the position advocated by the ICC Court, on whose behalf Three Crowns appeared in the appeal.

We have represented clients in the English courts when parties have sought to challenge an award on the basis of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity or a point of law. 

Our team also represents clients seeking peremptory orders and interim measures, such as security for costs and freezing injunctions, in the English courts. 

Members of our firm have appeared before the Paris Court of Appeal and the French Supreme Court on multiple occasions. 

We have defended investors in annulment applications by States following adverse investment treaty awards, and appeared in court proceedings challenging the jurisdiction and admissibility of claims brought before commercial arbitral tribunals. We have also represented clients seeking exequatur orders from the French courts. 

Our experience includes:

• Representing the García Armas family, before the Paris Court of Appeal, in a long-running dispute with Venezuela arising out of a 2010 de facto takeover by Venezuela’s consumer protection agency of food retailing and distribution companies previously owned by the family. 
• Representing Rusoro against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in set-aside proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal and the French Supreme Court. 
• Representing a Malaysian utility company before the Paris Court of Appeal in annulment proceedings initiated following a partial award on jurisdiction and admissibility by an ICC tribunal. 
• Acting for one of the largest European technology companies before the Paris Court of Appeal against a Brazilian company in annulment proceedings relating to an ICC award in a dispute arising out of the termination of a distribution agreement.  
• Representing a leading US-based biotechnology company before the Paris Court of Appeal and French Supreme Court in set-aside proceedings against a German pharmaceutical company. This case was the first time the Paris Court of Appeal referred a question to the European Court of Justice in annulment proceedings.

We assembled an international team of lawyers and high-profile amici to submit an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Bobby James Moore, an individual who had been on death row for over 35 years and in solitary confinement for over 14 years. The brief focused on the approach of non-U.S. courts, together with international tribunals and commissions, on the legality of extended periods of incarceration on death row. We addressed, from an international and comparative (i.e., non-U.S.) perspective, whether execution following an extended period of incarceration would be unconstitutional or against international human rights norms. The issue was relevant to assist the Court in determining whether Moore’s execution would breach the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The Court granted certiorari on other grounds and ultimately held that Texas’ test for determining intellectual disability was inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment, as Texas relied upon an outdated definition of intellectual disability to determine whether the death penalty could be imposed.  The Court remanded the case to the Texas courts for resentencing.  Bobby was eventually released on parole in June 2020.

We have advised clients including Boeing, Chevron and Eni on use of Section 1782 discovery mechanisms in US proceedings. These matters have arisen from parallel litigations and arbitrations, in which clients sought discovery and deposition from actors involved in fraudulent litigation, as well as production of materials to support local court proceedings. We have also advised more generally on the availability of US discovery under Section 1782 for foreign private, contract-based arbitrations.

Examples of our work include:

• Representing Chevron in a successful Section 1782 application for discovery and deposition from an Ecuadorian attorney involved in fraudulent litigation against Chevron in Ecuador.
• Representing Eni and Vitol in a Section 1782 application to the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas and Fifth Circuit for production of a Competent Person’s Report authored by Gaffney Cline.  The report was necessary to support Eni and Vitol’s claims in Ghanaian court proceedings regarding the forced unitisation of their productive oilfield, in which they have invested over $3 billion, with an unappraised oil discovery.
• Representing Boeing before the US Supreme Court in a case concerning the availability of Section 1782 discovery for foreign private, contract-based, arbitrations.

We act for a leading international oil & gas company, coordinating its global defence of a $15 billion award against an award debtor who has targeted its assets internationally. 

The proceedings involve more than 30 jurisdictions, including Luxembourg, Thailand, the US, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Taiwan, Egypt, Australia, India, China, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore and the UAE.