Our experience has seen us handle disputes for private individuals, corporates and states. In most instances these will be against counter-parties of the similar entities. We have a deep rooted understanding of many of the arbitral rules that oversee these types of arbitrations and are uniquely familiar with many of the locations that these arbitrations are handled in. Many of the cases we have handled have often drawn public attention due to the high profile nature of the work, as well as impact it might have for our clients.
This M&A dispute raised questions about deferred payment provisions and the valuation of a future put option and took place against the backdrop of difficult economic conditions that have accompanied the recent political crisis in Ukraine. Arising out of eight contracts, and involving the launch of eight related arbitrations, the dispute raised interesting procedural questions including the availability of consolidation. The dispute was settled in our clients favour, where we played a significant role.
In one of the largest ICC cases in history, Three Crowns helped ConocoPhillips obtain a US$2 billion arbitral award against PDVSA, the Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company. The arbitration raised issues of contract interpretation, contractual and extra-contractual liability, and the net present value of two long term projects of macro-economic significance. ConocoPhillips has since entered into a favorable settlement with PDVSA for the full value of the arbitral award, including interest.
Three Crowns lawyers also act as counsel to ConocoPhillips in a parallel ICSID claim against Venezuela, arising from the State’s nationalization of its oil industry. By representing ConocoPhillips in both the ICC and ICSID proceedings, the firm has played an integral strategic role in helping ConocoPhillips obtain redress for its loss.
The matter raises complex revenue allocation and accounting issues, and is the subject of an expert audit procedure within the arbitration process, which our lawyers are managing under the supervision of a standing arbitral tribunal. The matter has been ongoing since 2008, and Three Crowns were brought in to replace our client’s prior counsel as the arbitration reached a new, significant phase.
We successfully defended a leading Japanese automotive manufacturer in a dispute brought against it by a contractual counterparty. In its primary claim, the claimant sought substantial damages alleging that the non-renewal of an agreement for the marketing and distribution of automobiles had been unlawful. We secured an award which dismissed the claimant’s primary claim and awarded a counterclaim put forward by our client. After this victory, residual claims and costs were settled on favourable terms with a net payment to our client. The client asked Three Crowns to take on the case when proceedings were at an advanced stage in order to secure our advocacy skills and ability to develop game-changing arguments under the applicable laws.
In this matter Three Crowns represented Crescent Petroleum, Dana Gas and Pearl Petroleum in a London-seated LCIA arbitration against the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq (the “KRG”) arising from the KRG’s violation of our clients’ contractual rights and obligations in relation to two oil and gas fields in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. We secured for our clients, from an eminent arbitral tribunal comprised of two former UK Supreme Court justices, various remedies including: (a) interim measures requiring the KRG to re-commence regular payments that had been discontinued; (b) partial final awards against the KRG worth approximately US$2 billion; (c) dismissal of the KRG’s counterclaims worth several billion dollars; and (d) a favourable costs award. The arbitration eventually facilitated a settlement among the parties, under which our clients were able to proceed with development pursuant to a material lengthening and enhancement of their contractual rights in relation to the relevant fields.