We have been involved in numerous international investment and commercial matters. Many of our cases are confidential in nature. We are able to disclose our involvement in the following claims:

  • Trustees of the Gabourel Family Trust v. Honduras: We represent a group of US citizens who were not compensated after their private property was taken by the Republic of Honduras to build an airport.
  • Tennant Energy LLC v. Canada: Based on public admissions of unfair and non-transparent treatment, we represent a US Investor who failed to obtain contracts from Ontario in a publicly-administered Energy program.
  • Mesa Power LLC v. Canada: We represented a US Investor in a publicly-administered renewable energy program who lost its priority for contracts, when Ontario unfairly made non-transparent deals with politically-favoured companies at the expense of those following the public rules. We also represented this client in Section 1782 proceedings to obtain discovery from US Courts, and in set aside proceedings before the US Courts.
  • Bilcon of Delaware et al. v. Canada: We represented US investors subjected to unfair treatment in the Investors’ attempts to expand an existing a quarry in Nova Scotia. The Tribunal upheld the Investor’s claim concerned preferential and unfair treatment in violation of Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a breach of legitimate expectations and the fact that Canada failed to follow well-established international law fairness rules by ignoring environmental standards in a domestic environmental review process.
  • Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada: We represented a US investor that has owned timberlands in British Columbia for more than 100 years. The investor alleged that Canada unfairly administers a log export control regime which hurts logs grown on privately-owned forest lands in the province of British Columbia while favouring competing logs grown on public lands.
  • Continental Casualty v. Argentina: We represent a US investor in ICSID proceedings alleging breaches of the international law standards of treatment, contractual and treaty obligations owed to the investor’s local subsidiary in Argentina.
  • UPS of America v. Canada: We represented a US investor in a NAFTA claim against Canada, alleging that Canada failed to treat UPS as well as it treats competing Canadian companies operating in the courier and parcel delivery market.
  • Ethyl Corporation v. Canada: We represented a US investor in its claim against Canada. The claim was settled in 1998 after the Tribunal had rendered three decisions. As part of the settlement, the Government of Canada removed the measure which unfairly banned the Investor’s product, issued a statement (signed by two government ministers) clarifying that it had no evidence of harm caused by the product, and paid the company approximately CAD$20 million. The tribunal decisions in this claim were the first NAFTA investor-state decisions.
  • MCI Power et al. v. Ecuador: We represented a US investor in ICSID proceedings alleging breaches of contractual and international law obligations in the power sector in Ecuador.
  • Noble Ventures v. Romania: We represented a US Claimant in its ICSID claim alleging failure by Romania to meet contractual and international law obligations to foreign investors in the steel sector.
  • Pope & Talbot v. Canada: We represented a US investor in NAFTA proceedings, challenging irregularities in the process by which an export quota was allocated to its Canadian subsidiary through Canada’s implementation of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement. The Tribunal found that the Government of Canada had breached applicable law by threats made to the Company’s softwood lumber export quota by Canada. The NAFTA Tribunal also concluded that officials breached international law standards in how they treated this US-based company and ordered damages.
  • S.D. Myers v. Canada: We represented a US investor in NAFTA proceedings, which led to the issue of 16 preliminary awards and a final award in favour of the investor. The Federal Court of Canada subsequently upheld this award and dismissed Canada’s application to have the award set aside.
  • Signa S.A. de C.V. v. Canada: We represented a Mexican investor in the earliest NAFTA Notice of Intent on a CAD$50 million NAFTA claim against the Canadian Government related to the production of generic drugs.