Source: https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/carolyn-b-lamm/49871
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:05:58+00:00

Document:
Carolyn B. Lamm's practice concentrates on international dispute resolution through international arbitration, litigation and international trade proceedings. She has substantial experience with ICSID and its Additional Facility, NAFTA and other international arbitral proceedings involving States, as well as commercial arbitral fora including AAA/ICDR, ICC, Vienna Centre, Stockholm Chamber, Swiss Chamber, and in federal court litigation. She is involved primarily in the representation of foreign corporate clients and foreign sovereigns.
Ms. Lamm was appointed by President Clinton to the US Panel and later by the Government of Uzbekistan to the Uzbek Panel of Arbitrators for ICSID arbitration; she is a member of the American Arbitration Association Executive Committee and Board and has served as an arbitrator in AAA International Rules disputes. She has also rendered advice with respect to arbitration clauses and disputes under ICC rules and ad hoc arbitrations using UNCITRAL rules or agreed-upon procedures. She is a frequent lecturer on the topics of litigation, international arbitration and international trade.
PLC Which Lawyer? Competition Law Handbook, Dispute Resolution: Leading Lawyers Worldwide—listed as "Highly Recommended Individual in Washington, DC"
Who's Who Legal: The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers—listed as "Most Highly Regarded Individual"
National Law Journal "100 Most Influential Lawyers in United States"
Representing the Republic of Indonesia through the final stages of the first trial, the annulment proceedings and the resubmission proceedings (including the retrial) of Amco Asia et al. v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, which resulted from the revocation of a foreign investment license that permitted an investor to construct and operate a hotel in Jakarta. The case raised numerous issues of first impression and remains to date one of the most heavily cited cases in the investor-State context. First award annulled, second award partially annulled, and damages significantly reduced.
Representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in a treaty-based ICSID arbitration, Fraport v. Philippines, and in an ICC arbitration,PIATCO v. Philippines, as a result of the alleged nullification of a concession contract and expropriation of an international air terminal with claims jointly in excess of US$1 billion. In PIATCO, we achieved a significant victory for the Philippines, with the Tribunal's dismissal of all claims and the Singapore High Court's resolute rejection of the Claimant's petition to set aside the Tribunal's decision. In Fraport, the Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claims in their entirety for lack of jurisdiction. The ICSID Tribunal's award dismissing the case was later annulled, albeit on a narrow procedural ground and without establishing any liability of the Republic. We continue to represent the Republic in the dispute, which has been submitted to a new ICSID tribunal. Case pending.
Representing the Republic of the Philippines in a treaty-based ICSID arbitration brought by the Belgian company Baggerwerken Decloedt en Zoon NV with respect to a dredging project. Case pending.
Representing more than 60,000 Italian holders of Argentine sovereign bonds in an ICSID arbitration under the Italian/Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty of their US$1+ billion claim against the Argentine Republic—the largest ever presented to ICSID. We achieved a major victory in August 2011 when the Tribunal issued a seminal "Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility," establishing jurisdiction over the claims and giving the green light to the first-ever mass claim in investment arbitration history. Merits phase pending.
Lead counsel to the Government of Uzbekistan in Oxus Gold plc v. Uzbekistan(UNCITRAL Arbitration Paris) alleging violations of the UK-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty arising out of an alleged expropriation of gold mining concession; case pending.
Representing Uzbekistan in a treaty-based ICSID arbitration commenced by Metal-Tech for alleged expropriation of its investment and lack of fair and equitable treatment. Case pending.
Served as lead counsel to Government of Uzbekistan and Uzpishprom and Zeromax in ROZ Trading v. Coca-Cola Export Company, Government of Uzbekistan and Zeromax, a Vienna Chamber arbitration. Case dismissed.
Representing RWE Nukem, Inc. in an AAA arbitration with US Energy concerning contracts to import uranium. After protracted litigation/arbitration prevailed on 10th Circuit appeal. Case returned to the reconstituted AAA Tribunal and dismissed.
Representing PSEG in an ICSID arbitration against the Government of Turkey arising as a result of the Government of Turkey's violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard of the US/Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty. Prevailed to recover all "sunk costs."
Representing the Government of Bulgaria in an ICSID arbitration, Plama Consortium v. Republic of Bulgaria, under the Energy Charter Treaty and Bilateral Investment Treaties of claims of over US$100 million arising out of the privatization of an oil refinery project. Case dismissed and substantial cost award for Bulgaria.
Representing Peru in Aguaytia Energy, LLC v. Republic of Peru, an ICSID arbitration of a dispute involving electricity transmission and legal stability agreements in Peru in which the claims of the investor, totaling in excess of US$100 million, were dismissed in their entirety. Case dismissed.
Representing the Republic of Indonesia in Cemex Asia Holdings Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, an ICSID arbitration of a dispute relating to investments in a cement facility arising under contracts and the ASEAN treaty. After a hearing on Indonesia's jurisdictional objections, we achieved a settlement favorable to our client's interests. Case settled.
Served as special counsel re: ICSID issues to the claimants in OccidentalPetroleum Corporation & Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, an ICSID arbitration brought under the United States-Ecuador bilateral investment treaty. Award for Claimants and annulment request pending.
Representing the claimant in TECO Guatemala Holdings v. Guatemala, an ICSID arbitration of a US$285 million dispute arising from investments made in the electricity sector and involving actions of the relevant regulatory bodies in regard to tariff setting which form the basis of claims under the investment Chapter of the Dominican Republic-Central American-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Case pending.
Representing Peru in D.P. World v. v. Republic of Peru, a US$800+ million ICSID brought by a UK and Dubai company alleging claims arising out of the award and operation of port facilities in Peru. Case pending.
In Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, acted as special counsel to the claimant in the second annulment proceeding commenced under the ICSID arbitration, in which the attempt of the respondent to achieve annulment of the award against it was successfully defeated.
Served as special counsel to the claimant in Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States in a dispute with regard to a US$50 million waste treatment plant brought under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules. This was the first arbitration arising out of an investment dispute in Mexico under the NAFTA and resulted in an award in favor of Metalclad.
Appointed as an agent of the Attorney General of Canada to represent the Government of Canada in the first potential host state/investor arbitration under NAFTA that was successfully resolved and other subsequent investment disputes.
Advice regarding various confidential ICSID and arbitration matters.
Confidential advice to a State regarding its rights under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the jurisdiction of international tribunals to enforce such rights.
Içkale Insaat Limited Sirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Arbitration Case No. ARB 10/24) under the Turkey-Turkmenistan bilateral investment treaty.
Ministry of Petroleum of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, amicus in Spectrum Stores v. CITGO, and Saudi Aramco and related entities in Fast Break Foods v. Saudi Aramco, PDVSA, et al., In re Refined Petroleum Products. Case dismissed in US District Court on Act of State/Political Question grounds; prevailed in 5th Circuit.
KBC v. Pertamina, et al, representing the Government of Indonesia and its Ministry of Finance with respect to the wrongful restraint of hundreds of millions of dollars of the Government of Indonesia's in liquid natural gas and refined product revenues in New York Banks to satisfy a foreign arbitral award obtained by KBC against Pertamina, defenses under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and New York Convention. The Government of Indonesia's funds were not used to pay the Award. KBC v. Pertamina, 313 F.3d 70 (2d Cir 2002).
Representing the Government of Peru against Yale University for the return of artifacts from Machu Picchu. Settlement agreement for Yale to return artifacts.
Proceedings before the US Department of Commerce, Court of International Trade and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit representing the Ministry of Petroleum of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Aramco for dumping and subsidizing crude oil. Case dismissed for lack of standing by the US Department of Commerce; affirmed by CIT and Federal Circuit.
Proceedings against the Republic of Uzbekistan in antidumping and related proceedings concerning the importation of uranium before the US Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission. After negotiation of a Suspension Agreement and ten years of proceedings, ITC dismissed case against Uzbekistan.
Case against OPEC for violation of antitrust laws representing Ministry of Petroleum of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Aramco raising jurisdictional defenses including immunity, Act of State and Political Question. Case dismissed without prejudice.
Case in US District Court for the District of Columbia against the Government of Hungary, APVRT, for alleged expropriation of certain properties in 1948 and again in 1991 as a result of privatization. Dismissed after jurisdictional motion raising Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Political Question and Act of State defenses.
Represented the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation and Techsnabexport (the Russian uranium exporter) on major claims regarding alleged contracts to implement the HEU Agreement in the US (District Court, Southern District of New York), Switzerland and Sweden (arbitration). Case dismissed after raising jurisdictional defenses under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Act of State, Political Question and national security grounds.
Representing AO Techsnabexport in a proceeding initiated in District Court of Maryland and Fourth Circuit for termination of agreements related to highly enriched uranium return feed contracts. GNSS v. AO Techsnabexport, 376 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2004).
Representing RWE Nukem, Inc. in case initiated by World Wide Minerals arising out of contracts in Kazakhstan. Case dismissed. World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2002); World Wide Minerals Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 116 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.D.C. 2000).
Representing RWE Nukem, Inc. in Tenth Circuit initiated by US Energy arising out of certain partnership agreements. Obtained remand to arbitral tribunal after ten years of litigation over enforcement of an ambiguous award. Represented Nukem successfully in remanded arbitration proceeding. US Energy v. Nukem, 400 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2005).
Represented George Washington Corporation and George Washington Life Insurance Company in shareholders' derivative class action (Rule 23) with respect to allegations of securities fraud in Middle District of Florida. Case dismissed.
Case against the Export Import Bank of Indonesia, Bank Indonesia and the Government of Indonesia in the Southern District of New York alleging massive prime bank fraud. Dismissed under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Representing various Indonesian ministries and government-owned corporations in several different cases in the US District Courts in financial cases raising precedent-setting issues under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the US District Court for Arizona; and 9th Circuit; US District Court for the Southern District of New York, and 2nd Circuit and Eastern District of North Carolina. All Dismissed. Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302 (9th Cir. 1997), Storr v. National Defense Sec. Council, 164 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1998), Velasco v. Republic of Indonesia, 370 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2004).
Represented PT Jamsostek in alleged reinsurance fraud. Dismissed on the basis of subject matter jurisdictional issues under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (after motion and trial).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.