• Philippines v. China. We successfully represented the Philippines in an arbitration pursuant to Annex VII of the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea regarding maritime jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected China’s claim to “historic rights” in the maritime areas encompassed by its so-called “nine-dashed line” as inconsistent with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and found that China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights under the Convention.
• Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay. We successfully represented Uruguay in a case involving claims of breaches to fair and equitable treatment, alleged indirect expropriation and denial of justice arising out of the implementation of tobacco regulations.
• Nicaragua v. Colombia (Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute). We successfully represented Nicaragua in this case before the International Court of Justice to delimit maritime boundaries in the western Caribbean Sea. Nicaragua achieved a major victory over Colombia obtaining access to the full extent of its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, which Colombia sought to cut off at 70 nautical miles, and more than 75% of the waters claimed by both States in the Caribbean Sea.
• Bangladesh v. Myanmar. We successfully represented Bangladesh in this case before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to delimit the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. The Judgment, issued on 14 March 2012, gave Bangladesh the vast majority of the disputed maritime area, as well as an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
• Argentina v. Uruguay (Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the Uruguay River). We successfully represented Uruguay in this proceeding before the International Court of Justice, defending its right to sustainable development through the construction of a paper pulp mill by showing that the mill satisfied the highest environmental standards. The Court rejected Argentina’s request to shut down the plant based on unproven allegations of harm to the river shared by the two States.
• Nicaragua v. the United States of America (Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua). Foley Hoag Partner Paul Reichler represented Nicaragua in this historic proceeding, which resulted in a decision condemning the United States for its military, logistical and financial aid to counter-revolutionary forces attempting to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua, and for the mining of Nicaraguan harbors by U.S. intelligence forces.
• Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. We represented Venezuela in this arbitral proceeding under the ICSID Additional Facility, based on a claim of damages worth more than US$1 billion brought by a Canadian mining company under the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Venezuela. The Tribunal issued an Award unanimously rejecting all of claimant’s claims on the merits.
• 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 ICSID arbitral award in Ecuador’s favor. We successfully defended the Tribunal’s decision before an ICSID annulment panel, which rejected the investor’s challenge.
• Murphy Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador. We represented Ecuador in these ICSID 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 unforeseeable rises in oil sales prices. A full dismissal of the claim was obtained on jurisdictional grounds.
• ETI Euro Telecom International N.V. v. Republic of Bolivia. We successfully represented Bolivia in this ICSID 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 and agreed to pay Bolivia’s costs.
• Carpenter v. Republic of Chile. We successfully defended Chile in a lawsuit brought by an individual in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of his human rights by the Chilean courts. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
• Caromin v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. We successfully defended Venezuela in a lawsuit brought by two Venezuelan mining companies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit over the termination of diamond and gold mine concessions. The District Court granted Venezuela’s motion to dismiss the case on grounds of sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decision.