BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


September 8, 2014 - Present

Treaty Type


Investment Law

Sector

Oil, Gas & Mining

Case Decision

Pending

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

Mishcon de Reya Solicitors, London, U.K.

Representative of the Claimant

Elihu Lauterpacht, London, U.K
Guglielmo Verdirame, London, U.K.
Toby Landau, London, U.K.
Webber Wentzel, Johannesburg, South Africa


Amount Claimed


Material Unavailable

Amount Given to Arbitrators


Material Unavailable

Legal Fees of Respondent


Material Unavailable


Legal Fees of Claimant


Material Unavailable

Total Legal Fees


Material Unavailable

Administrative Fees


Material Unavailable


Société Industrielle des Boissons de Guinée

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


April 5, 2012 - May 21, 2014

Treaty Type


Investment Law

Sector

Other Industry

Case Decision

Concluded

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

Cabinet Mamadou S. Traore, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Orrick Rambaud Martel, Paris, France

Representative of the Claimant

Cabinet Leboulanger, Paris, France


Amount Claimed


-

Amount Given to Arbitrators


-

Legal Fees of Respondent


-


Legal Fees of Claimant


-

Total Legal Fees


-

Administrative Fees


-


Maritime International Nominees Establishment

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


September 18, 1984 - November 20, 1990

Treaty Type


Contract

Sector

Oil, Gas & Mining

Case Decision

Discontinued

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Representative of the Claimant

Kaplan Russin & Vecchi, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.


Amount Claimed


Material Unavailable

Amount Given to Arbitrators


Material Unavailable

Legal Fees of Respondent


Material Unavailable


Legal Fees of Claimant


Material Unavailable

Total Legal Fees


Material Unavailable

Administrative Fees


Material Unavailable


BSG Resources Limited (in administration), BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


September 8, 2014 - Present

Treaty Type


Investment Law

Sector

Oil, Gas & Mining

Case Decision

Pending

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

DLA Piper, Paris, France
Orrick Rambaud Martel, Paris, France

Representative of the Claimant

Mishcon de Reya Solicitors, London, U.K.


Amount Claimed


Material Unavailable

Amount Given to Arbitrators


Material Unavailable

Legal Fees of Respondent


Material Unavailable


Legal Fees of Claimant


Material Unavailable

Total Legal Fees


Material Unavailable

Administrative Fees


Material Unavailable


Getma International and others

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


11/3/2011 - December 13, 2016

Treaty Type


Investment Law

Sector

Transportation

Case Decision

Decided in favor of the investor

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

Edasso Rodrigue Bayala, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Orrick Rambaud Martel, Paris, France

Representative of the Claimant

Fischer, Tandeau de Marsac, Sur & Associés, Paris, France
PLMJ – A.M. Pereira, Sáragga Leal, Oliveira Martins, Júdice e Associados RL, Lisbon, Portugal


Amount Claimed


EUR 42,245,208

Amount Given to Arbitrators


Not Specified

Legal Fees of Respondent


Not Specified


Legal Fees of Claimant


Not Specified

Total Legal Fees


Not specified

Administrative Fees


Not specified


Société Civile Immobilière de Gaëta

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


November 28, 2012 - December 21, 2015

Treaty Type


Investment Law

Sector

Construction

Decided in favor of the state

Discontinued

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

Cabinet Mamadou S. Traore, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Orrick Rambaud Martel, Paris, France

Representative of the Claimant

Derains & Gharavi, Paris, France
SCP Akl & Akl, Beirut, Lebanon


Amount Claimed


Not Specified

Amount Given to Arbitrators


US$ 517,998.39

Legal Fees of Respondent


EUR 792,215.79


Legal Fees of Claimant


US$ 925,131 But expected to pay compensation to the defendant in the amount of EUR 633,772.63

Total Legal Fees


US$ 647,998,392

Administrative Fees


Not specified


UNTITLED

iarb

South Africa


Start and End Date


January 8, 2007 - August 4, 2010

Treaty Type


BIT

Sector

Oil, Gas & Mining

Case Decision

Discontinued

Arbitration Center

ICSID

Representative of the Respondent

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Paris, France
Gerrit L. Grobler, Pretoria, South Africa
State Attorney of the Republic of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Representative of the Claimant

Elihu Lauterpacht, London, U.K
Guglielmo Verdirame, London, U.K.
Toby Landau, London, U.K.
Webber Wentzel, Johannesburg, South Africa


Amount Claimed


375.00 Million USD

Amount Given to Arbitrators


Not Specified

Legal Fees of Respondent


Not Specified


Legal Fees of Claimant


EURO 400,000 to be paid to respondent

Total Legal Fees


Not specified

Administrative Fees


Not specified


Minoutsi Shipping Corp Vs. Trans Continental Shipping Services (Pte) Ltd [1971-1973] SLR(R) 21; [1971] SGHC 3

iarb

Algeria


A dispute arose between the parties pursuant to a charter party, which provided that any disputes arising should be referred to arbitration in London, with one arbitrator to be appointed by each party unless the parties agreed on a single arbitrator. Minoutsi appointed an arbitrator. As Continental failed to nominate an arbitrator, Minoutsi called upon its arbitrator to assume the function of sole arbitrator. Upon giving notice to both parties, the arbitrator made his award in favour of Minoutsi. Minoutsi then began an action in Singapore against Continental for the sum awarded by the arbitrator in London. It then applied to the Singapore court for leave to sign final judgment against Continental under O 14 of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970.
Continental opposed the application and argued that the arbitration award was bad because Continental had not nominated an arbitrator, and had not agreed that the law of England would apply to the arbitration. The Court held that the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the charter party and the award was thus a good one. The charter party was silent as to what law should govern the arbitration and also as to what should take place if one of the parties failed to nominate an arbitrator when called upon to do by the other party. As such, with the parties’ agreement that the arbitration should take place in London and in the absence of any specific provisions to the contrary, the law of England should apply to the arbitration proceedings.


Allowed leave to sign final judgment (of arbitration award) against Continental

Download

Galsworthy Ltd of the Republic of Liberia Vs. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 727; [2010] SGHC 304

iarb

Algeria


An arbitration award was issued in London – Glasworthy came to the Singapore courts and obtained leave to enforce the award. Glory Wealth Shipping (GWS) applied to set aside the order granting leave to enforce. The 2010 Refusal to grant application to set aside order granting leave to enforce arbitration award USD 40million application was dismissed, but dissatisfied, GWS appealed on three grounds – that the award contained a decision on the matter beyond the scope of submissions to arbitration; that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore. The Court held that GWS was not entitled to apply to set aside the order granting leave to enforced, which amounted to an abuse of process, as GWS had elected to proceed in the English courts. In the alternative, GWS had not sufficiently established the grounds asserted on appeal.


Refusal to grant application to set aside order granting leave to enforce arbitration award

Download

Compagnie des Bauxites de Kindia (CBK SA) contre Association d’Economie Extérieure “Tyazhpromexport” – Arret numéro: 46 (Février 2013)

iarb

Algeria


The government enterprise ‘’Association d’Economie Extérieure’’ ‘’Tyazhpromexport’’ is opposed to the Company of state of Bauxites of Kinidia (SBK). The judgment was restricted to control if the submitted award has acquired the force of judged thing and it has nothing against the Guinean public order or to court order of Guinea. CBK made its request of interpretation of stop.


This application has not blamed CBK and the latter must consequently be regarded as one third. The award of March 13th, 2006 does not have to mention of the aforesaid letter written since 2001. In this stop of the enforcement of the award, the CBK was not put in question. This application could not produce an unspecified effect with regard to CBK.

Download