Representative Experience

State-to-State Disputes

Litigation before the International Court of Justice in The Hague

  • Georgia v. Russia (Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) . We represent Georgia in this case, in which Georgia has sued Russia over Russia’s participation in and support for ethnic cleansing aimed at expelling ethnic Georgians from areas of Georgia occupied by Russian forces following Russia’s August 2008 invasion.
  • Ecuador v. Colombia (Case Concerning Aerial Spraying on the Border) . We represent Ecuador in this proceeding, in which Ecuador has asked the Court to order Colombia to terminate its aerial spraying of toxic herbicides in such close proximity to the Ecuadorian border that it has caused, and continues to cause, serious harm to human health, livestock, crops and the environment in Ecuador.
  • Argentina v. Uruguay (Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the Uruguay River) . We represent Uruguay in this proceeding, defending its right to sustainable development through the construction of a pulp plant that satisfies the highest environmental standards. Argentina has asked the Court to prohibit the construction of the plant on the basis of possible harm to the river shared by the two States.
  • Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (Case Regarding Navigational and Related Rights) . We represented Nicaragua in this dispute over the extent of Costa Rica’s navigational rights on the San Juan River, which is part of Nicaragua and divides the land territories of the two States.
  • Nicaragua v. Colombia (Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute) . We represent Nicaragua in this case, which will determine sovereignty over certain islands in the Western Caribbean, as well as the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in those waters.
  • Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda (Case Concerning Armed Activities in the Territory of Congo) . Our attorneys represented Uganda, which was accused of armed intervention in the Congolese civil war and the unlawful occupation of Congolese territory.
  • Nicaragua v. the United States of America (Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua) . We represented Nicaragua in this historic proceeding, which resulted in a decision condemning the United States for its military, logistical and financial aid to counterrevolutionary forces attempting to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua, and for the mining of Nicaraguan harbors by U.S. intelligence forces.

Arbitration and Mediation of Territorial and Maritime Disputes

  • Guyana v. Suriname. We represented Guyana in this proceeding under the Convention on the Law of the Sea (Annex VII) to delimit the maritime boundary between the two neighboring countries. The arbitration resulted in a victory for Guyana, which was awarded the vast majority of the maritime area in dispute, including all of the area where significant oil deposits are believed to exist.
  • Bangladesh v. India. We represent Bangladesh in this arbitration under the Law of Sea Convention to delimit the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India and to establish Bangladesh’s rights to an extended continental shelf.
  • Bangladesh v. Myanmar. We represent Bangladesh in this arbitration under the Law of Sea Convention to delimit the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar and to establish Bangladesh’s rights to an extended continental shelf.
  • Guatemala and Belize. One of our partners served as Mediator, named by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, to facilitate a definitive resolution of the territorial dispute between Guatemala and Belize. The mediation resulted in an Accord signed by the Ministers of Foreign Relations of the two countries. 

Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules

  • United States v. India.  One of our attorneys represented the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration relating to losses related to a major power plant project in India.

Litigation before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

  • Iran v. United States (I-US CT Case A/15-IIA).  One of our partners defended the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran’s claim that the United States violated United States obligations under the Algiers Accords to arrange for the transfer to Iran of Iranian tangible properties subject to United States jurisdiction.
  • United States v. Iran (I-US CT Case A/28 and I-US CT Case A/33).  I.  A Foley Hoag partner represented the United States in two cases against the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding Iran’s failure to replenish the Security Account created to cover awards give by the Tribunal.
  • Iran v. United States (I-US CT Case B/6).  One of our partners represented the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran’s claim for compensation for weapons from private contractors purchased by the Shah's government, but which allegedly were never delivered.
  • United States v. Iran (I-US CT Case B/1A).  Foley Hoag partner represented the United States in a counterclaim regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s claim of non-delivery of military equipment purchased during the Shah’s regime.

Litigation before the World Trade Organization

  • One of our senior attorneys has represented the United States in various disputes before WTO, including: United States-Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel (India); Mexico- Anti-dumping duty investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (United States); United States-Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act; United States- Harbor Maintenance Tax (EC),  and Romania- Customs Valuation.
  • Advising Asian countries with respect to WTO disputes.

Investor-State Arbitration

Arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

  • ETI Euro Telecom International N.V. v. Republic of Bolivia. We successfully represented Bolivia in this arbitration brought by a Dutch company whose interests in a Bolivian telecommunications company were nationalized by the Bolivian government. Faced with Bolivia’s objections to ICSID jurisdiction, based on Bolivia’s withdrawal from the ICSID Convention, the investor unilaterally terminated the arbitration.
  • Murphy Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador . We represent Ecuador in these proceedings challenging Ecuador’s application to a U.S. company of its laws establishing the Government’s share of unexpected and non-negotiated revenue resulting from the unforeseen rise in oil sales prices.
  • M.C.I. Power Group L.C. v. Republic of Ecuador. We represented Ecuador in these proceedings brought by a U.S. investor to annul an arbitral award in Ecuador’s favor, which concluded that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the claims raised by the investor; we successfully defended the tribunal’s decision before an ICSID annulment panel, which rejected the investor’s challenge.
  • I&I Beheer B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Our lawyers represented Venezuela in an arbitral proceeding based upon a dispute over promissory notes, brought by a Netherlands investor under the bilateral investment treaty between Holland and Venezuela. The proceeding was conducted in Spanish and English.
  • Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela . Our lawyers represent Venezuela in this arbitral proceeding under the ICSID Additional Facility, based on a claim of more than US$1 billion brought by a Canadian mining company under the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Venezuela. The proceeding was conducted in Spanish and English.
  • Química e Industrial del Borax Ltda. v. Republic of Bolivia . We are representing Bolivia in this proceeding, initiated under the bilateral investment treaty between Bolivia and Chile, concerning the Bolivian Government’s termination of a mineral concession. The arbitration is being conducted in Spanish.
  • Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador . We represented Ecuador in the provisional measures phase of this arbitration, resulting from the Ecuadorian Government’s termination of a contract for the exploitation of an oil field, and the claimants’ allegation that their investment was “expropriated.” The tribunal ruled unanimously in Ecuador’s favor, and refused to order the measures requested by the claimants. The proceedings were conducted in Spanish and English.
  • Repsol YPF Ecuador, S.A v. Republic of Ecuador and PetroEcuador.  One of our partners served as lead counsel for the Republic of Ecuador and PetroEcuador in a dispute regarding a Spanish oil company’s investment contract with Ecuador.
  • Shell Brands International AG and Shell Nicaragua S.A. v. Republic of Nicaragua . We represented Nicaragua in this arbitration, initiated under the bilateral investment treaty between Nicaragua and Holland, concerning a seizure of the trademarks of the two investors ordered by the Nicaraguan courts.
  • Victor Pey Casado and Fundación Presidente Allende v. Republic of Chile . Our lawyers represented Chile in its defense of a US$515 million claim in an arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty between the Kingdom of Spain and Chile. The proceedings were conducted in Spanish and French.
  • MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile . Our attorneys represented Chile in an annulment proceeding under the ICSID Convention, based upon an arbitral award issued under the bilateral investment treaty between Malaysia and Chile. The proceeding concerned a construction project. The official languages of the arbitration were Spanish and English.
  • Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v. Republic of Chile . One of our partners advised Chile in an arbitration brought against it by a Spanish fishing company under the bilateral investment treaty between Chile and the Kingdom of Spain. The official language of the proceedings was Spanish.
  • Noble Ventures v. Romania . One of our partners represented the Government of Romania in an international arbitration concerning a US$550 million claim concerning a steel mill under the bilateral investment treaty between the United States and Romania.
  • ADF Group Inc. v. United States.  One of our partners defended the United States in an ICSID Additional Facility case brought by a construction subcontractor regarding national content requirements that allegedly violated the NAFTA Investment Chapter. 
  • Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States.  One of our partners represented the United States in ICSID Additional Facility proceedings under NAFTA that arose from allegations of denial of justice. 
  • Mondev International Ltd. v. United States.  A Foley Hoag partner represented the United States in ICSID Additional Facility proceedings under NAFTA brought by a commercial development company.
  • EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and Leon Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Republic of Argentina.  Our lawyers represented various European energy sector claimants in a US$258 million arbitration claim under the bilateral investment treaties between France and Argentina and between Luxembourg and Argentina.  The arbitration proceedings were in Spanish and English.
  • Compañía General de Electricidad S.A. v. Republic of Argentina.  One of our partners represented a Chilean energy sector investor in its Claim against Argentina under the bilateral investment treaty between Argentina and Chile.  The arbitration was conducted is Spanish.
  • EDF International S.A. and Electricidad Argentina S.A. v. Republic of Argentina.  Our lawyers represented a French electricity company and its Argentine affiliate in a US$1.2 billion claim in arbitration against the Argentine Republic under the bilateral investment treaty between France and Argentina.  The arbitration was conducted in Spanish and English.
  • Azurix Corp. v. Republic of Argentina.  We represented Azurix Corporation in opposing a request by Argentina to annul an arbitral award in favor of Azurix in the amount of US$265 million in relation to a concession contract of water and sewerage services in the Province of Buenos Aires.
  • Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic.  One of our partners served as counsel for an energy company to defend and enforce an ICSID award based on claims that Argentina had engaged in direct and creeping expropriation in violation of the investment treaty between the United States and Argentina.
  • Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company v. Egypt . One of our partners represented Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company in a claim brought against it by the Arab Republic of Egypt and its General Authority for Investments and the Free Trade Zone Area, based on tax matters and indirect expropriation.
  • Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Egypt . One of our partners represented the claimant in an arbitration alleging expropriation in relation to the construction of a residential complex in the Plateau of the Pyramids.

Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules

  • Nova Scotia Power Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  We represent Venezuela in an arbitral proceeding currently under the UNCITRAL Rules, arising from a coal supply contract, brought by a Canadian company under the Canada-Venezuela bilateral investment treaty.
  • Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Company.  We represented Nicaragua in an arbitration to obtain compensation for the cancellation of an investment contract for banana plantations by an American company.
  • Delaney v. Société Nationale des Hydrocarbures.  One of our partners defended a state-owned company from the Republic of Cameroon in an arbitration in Paris against a Bermuda oil company over the sale of oil.
  • Cases Regarding the Border Closure due to BSE Concerns.  One of our partners represented the United States against claims by Canadian cattle companies that the closure of the border following a mad cow disease outbreak violated the NAFTA’s national treatment provisions.
  • Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States.  A Foley Hoag partner represented the United States against a mining company that filed a regulatory expropriation claim under the NAFTA’s Investment Chapter. 
  • Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. United States.  One of our partners led the United States defense against a Canadian tobacco company’s claim of expropriation, national treatment, and other NAFTA violations arising from the master tobacco settlement between United States states and major tobacco companies.
  • Methanex Corporation v. United States.  One of our partners represented the United States in a case brought by a Canadian methanol company under NAFTA regarding legislation banning the use of a methanol-based gasoline additive. 
  • Softwood Lumber Consolidated Proceeding.  One of our partners represented the United States in four disputes involving Canadian lumber companies’ claims that the United States had violated NAFTA’s provisions on national treatment and minimum standard of treatment.
  • Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. Republic of Ecuador.  One of our partners defended Ecuador in a case brought by a United States oil and gas company before the Permanent Court of Arbitration based on the United States -Republic of Ecuador bilateral investment treaty.

Arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

  • Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation . We represented the Philippines in an arbitration in Lausanne, Switzerland, for hundreds of millions of dollars, over defects in the design and construction of a nuclear power plant.
  • Green Mining Company v. Republic of Guyana . We represented the Republic of Guyana in an arbitration based in London against an Australian-American company, over claims that the Guyana Government expropriated the company’s contract rights.
  • Consortium Impreglio v. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority . One of our partners defended a state-owned company of the Kingdom of Lesotho in an arbitration in London initiated by a European construction consortium over the construction of a dam and reservoir.

Arbitration before other International Fora

  • A.E.I Luxembourg Holdings S.ar.L. v. Republic of Bolivia . We represented Bolivia in this arbitration before the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, concerning the nationalization of a gas pipeline company in Bolivia.
  • Republic of Guyana v. Texas Ohio Corp . We represented the Republic of Guyana in an arbitration before the International Dispute Resolution Center of the American Arbitration Association, to obtain compensation for the respondent’s violation of a contract to rehabilitate and operate a power plant in Guyana.
  • Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Company . We represented Nicaragua in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, to obtain compensation for the cancellation of an investment contract for banana plantations by an American company.
  • Neptune Mining Company v. Republic of Nicaragua. We represented Nicaragua in an arbitration based in Caracas, Venezuela, to determine the value of gold mines nationalized by the Nicaraguan Government and the amount owed to the Government by the mining company for failure to pay taxes.
  • ENABAS (Republic of Nicaragua) v. Cargill . We represented a Nicaraguan state-owned company in an arbitration before the Rice Millers Association (U.S.) against a North American company that distributes rice and other commodities over the shipment of adulterated rice.
  • Delaney v. Société Nationale des Hydrocarbures. One of our partners defended a state-owned company from the Republic of Cameroon in an arbitration in Paris under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules against a Bermuda oil company over the sale of oil.
  • Devres v. Government of Guyana . We represented the Government of Guyana in an arbitration in Georgetown, Guyana, under the Guyana Arbitration Act, against a U.S.-based health care consulting firm over contract performance and termination.

International Commercial and Construction Arbitration

  • One of our lawyers represented a consortium of American, Canadian, German, and Japanese companies in ICC proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding claims arising out of the construction of a nationwide telecommunications system. 
  • One of our partners represented an American energy investment company claiming royalties from a large Australian oil development company before an ad hoc tribunal in Australia. 
  • One of our partners was lead counsel for a claim filed at the Rice Millers Association Arbitration Commission on behalf of an American rice exporter and shipper for funds due under a contract with the Government of Iraq. 
  • Represented a European/Latin American construction consortium in a Spanish language ICC arbitration in Bolivia related to the construction of a water transfer tunnel.
  • Represented a Latin American media company in an arbitration, in Spanish, against a Spanish company.
  • Defended a Japanese trading company in an ICC arbitration brought by a Turkish construction company related to the construction of a hydroelectric facility in Turkey.
  • Represented the owner of a large entertainment facility in an ICC arbitration in Paris related to construction at the facility.
  • Represented a Malaysian oil company in arbitrations under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association and the Rules of the Maritime Arbitrators Association in Houston (Texas) over claims related to the rehabilitation of a drilling rig.
  • Represented an American instrumentation company before the International Dispute Resolution Center of the American Arbitration Association against its distributor in Colombia.
  • Represented a British instrumentation company before the International Dispute Resolution Center of the American Arbitration Association against its distributor in Asia.
  • Represented a U.S. insurance company in an arbitration under New York law brought by a U.S. company for alleged loss suffered by its French subsidiary.
  • Represented a European country against a North African country in an arbitration regarding the construction of submarine equipment for the development of a gas deposit.
  • Represented a French construction company in an arbitration against an African state-owned entity in an ad hoc proceeding in another African country regarding the construction of an access road for a dam construction site.
  • Represented a French construction company in pre-arbitration conciliation proceedings in Singapore against an Asian government under European Development Fund Rules in relation to the construction of a highway.
  • Advised a U.S. bank on a pre-arbitration claim to the 0verseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) regarding the expropriation of a power plant in Latin America.
  • Represented clients in arbitral award enforcement actions in England, Belgium, the United States and other jurisdictions.
  • Advising with respect to the resolution of disputes resulting from a systems failure during construction of a university's controversial infectious diseases laboratory -- including with the project manager, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, and professional liability and builders' risks insurers.