{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"14","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":444107,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2780,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Savage KC is a partner in our Paris and London offices, specializing in international arbitration. John has represented clients in approximately 200 arbitrations around the world in 30\u0026nbsp;years of practice. He has particular expertise in complex, high-stakes corporate, investment and projects disputes, with an emphasis on the oil and gas, mining and power sectors. John has been lauded in the directories as \"a tremendously effective advocate\" with \"real global stature in arbitration.\" John was previously a vice president of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and a Director of the SIAC.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has worked for high-profile clients including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, GE, Samsung C\u0026amp;T and Shell, and his recent successes for clients include some of the largest awards handed down in international arbitration. He also has substantial experience in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn is a King's\u0026nbsp;Counsel in England, was admitted as a member of the Paris bar in 1997 and was one of the first foreign lawyers to gain rights of audience at the Singapore International Commercial Court. John spent 12 years in Singapore establishing himself as one of the leading arbitration lawyers in Asia, and has also practiced arbitration in Paris and Washington DC. John studied law and was admitted to practice in England and France and is equally comfortable in common and civil law environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has been recognized for many years by Chambers Global as one of the world's top arbitration lawyers. Among recent accolades, legal directories describe John as \"a tremendously effective advocate and fine arbitrator\" with \"real global stature in arbitration,\" \"a gifted strategist,\" \"hugely respected and extremely well-regarded\" and \"a talented advocate whose clear and effective arguments are often case-winning interventions.\" Legal 500 (2021) observes that\u0026nbsp;John \"is the type of lawyer that comes into the case at the appropriate time, learns everything, dispenses sage advice and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\u0026rdquo; and that John \"has the ability to absorb a lot of material in a short amount of time. He sees a case from the lens of an arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues that the arbitrators will focus on in deciding a case.\u0026rdquo; Chambers (2020) writes, \u0026ldquo;He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;From a client perspective, you couldn't want anyone better. He gives everything to a case.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-savage","email":"jsavage@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCA Investment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea consortium of energy companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE Hitachi Nuclear Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSL Mining\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGerald International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInterGlobe Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India\u0026rsquo;s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebuyer of LNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian business house\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow Chemical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion\u0026mdash;one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest multinationals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConocoPhillips China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large independent oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. satellite communications provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client\u0026rsquo;s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGaranti Koza LLP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan\u0026rsquo;s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Asian construction contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMalaysian Historical Salvors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSGS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSamsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":207}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Savage","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"K.C.","recognitions":[{"title":"\"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2024"},{"title":"\"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a formidable advocate.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"“He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\" ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"},{"title":"\"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-savage-kc/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Savage KC is a partner in our Paris and London offices, specializing in international arbitration. John has represented clients in approximately 200 arbitrations around the world in 30\u0026nbsp;years of practice. He has particular expertise in complex, high-stakes corporate, investment and projects disputes, with an emphasis on the oil and gas, mining and power sectors. John has been lauded in the directories as \"a tremendously effective advocate\" with \"real global stature in arbitration.\" John was previously a vice president of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and a Director of the SIAC.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has worked for high-profile clients including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, GE, Samsung C\u0026amp;T and Shell, and his recent successes for clients include some of the largest awards handed down in international arbitration. He also has substantial experience in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn is a King's\u0026nbsp;Counsel in England, was admitted as a member of the Paris bar in 1997 and was one of the first foreign lawyers to gain rights of audience at the Singapore International Commercial Court. John spent 12 years in Singapore establishing himself as one of the leading arbitration lawyers in Asia, and has also practiced arbitration in Paris and Washington DC. John studied law and was admitted to practice in England and France and is equally comfortable in common and civil law environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has been recognized for many years by Chambers Global as one of the world's top arbitration lawyers. Among recent accolades, legal directories describe John as \"a tremendously effective advocate and fine arbitrator\" with \"real global stature in arbitration,\" \"a gifted strategist,\" \"hugely respected and extremely well-regarded\" and \"a talented advocate whose clear and effective arguments are often case-winning interventions.\" Legal 500 (2021) observes that\u0026nbsp;John \"is the type of lawyer that comes into the case at the appropriate time, learns everything, dispenses sage advice and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\u0026rdquo; and that John \"has the ability to absorb a lot of material in a short amount of time. He sees a case from the lens of an arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues that the arbitrators will focus on in deciding a case.\u0026rdquo; Chambers (2020) writes, \u0026ldquo;He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;From a client perspective, you couldn't want anyone better. He gives everything to a case.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCA Investment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea consortium of energy companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE Hitachi Nuclear Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSL Mining\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGerald International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInterGlobe Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India\u0026rsquo;s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebuyer of LNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian business house\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow Chemical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion\u0026mdash;one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest multinationals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConocoPhillips China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large independent oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. satellite communications provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client\u0026rsquo;s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGaranti Koza LLP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan\u0026rsquo;s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Asian construction contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMalaysian Historical Salvors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSGS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSamsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2024"},{"title":"\"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a formidable advocate.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"“He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\" ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"},{"title":"\"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11419}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-09T20:22:45.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-09T20:22:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Savage{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a formidable advocate.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Shell and Chevron in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing Shell in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing CA Investment in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars.{{ FIELD }}Represented a consortium of energy companies in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing SL Mining and Gerald International in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients’ investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing InterGlobe Enterprises in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India’s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a buyer of LNG in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller.{{ FIELD }}Represented an Indian business house in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented Dow Chemical as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion—one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the world’s largest multinationals as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed).{{ FIELD }}Represented ConocoPhillips China in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large independent oil company in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. satellite communications provider in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client’s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought.{{ FIELD }}Represented Garanti Koza LLP, a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan’s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits.{{ FIELD }}Represented an Asian construction contractor in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented Malaysian Historical Salvors in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia.{{ FIELD }}Represented SGS as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed).{{ FIELD }}Represented Samsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.{{ FIELD }}John Savage KC is a partner in our Paris and London offices, specializing in international arbitration. John has represented clients in approximately 200 arbitrations around the world in 30 years of practice. He has particular expertise in complex, high-stakes corporate, investment and projects disputes, with an emphasis on the oil and gas, mining and power sectors. John has been lauded in the directories as \"a tremendously effective advocate\" with \"real global stature in arbitration.\" John was previously a vice president of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and a Director of the SIAC.\nJohn has worked for high-profile clients including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, GE, Samsung C\u0026amp;T and Shell, and his recent successes for clients include some of the largest awards handed down in international arbitration. He also has substantial experience in mediation.\nJohn is a King's Counsel in England, was admitted as a member of the Paris bar in 1997 and was one of the first foreign lawyers to gain rights of audience at the Singapore International Commercial Court. John spent 12 years in Singapore establishing himself as one of the leading arbitration lawyers in Asia, and has also practiced arbitration in Paris and Washington DC. John studied law and was admitted to practice in England and France and is equally comfortable in common and civil law environments.\nJohn has been recognized for many years by Chambers Global as one of the world's top arbitration lawyers. Among recent accolades, legal directories describe John as \"a tremendously effective advocate and fine arbitrator\" with \"real global stature in arbitration,\" \"a gifted strategist,\" \"hugely respected and extremely well-regarded\" and \"a talented advocate whose clear and effective arguments are often case-winning interventions.\" Legal 500 (2021) observes that John \"is the type of lawyer that comes into the case at the appropriate time, learns everything, dispenses sage advice and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.” and that John \"has the ability to absorb a lot of material in a short amount of time. He sees a case from the lens of an arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues that the arbitrators will focus on in deciding a case.” Chambers (2020) writes, “He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes” and “From a client perspective, you couldn't want anyone better. He gives everything to a case.” John Savage Partner \"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\" Chambers Europe-Wide 2024 \"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\"  Chambers Europe-Wide 2024 \"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\" Chambers Europe-Wide 2024 \"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\" Chambers Global, 2024 \"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\" Legal 500, 2024 \"He is a formidable advocate.\" Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\" Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\" Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\"  Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\"  Chambers UK (2022) \"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\"  Chambers UK (2022) \"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\"  Legal 500 UK (2022) \"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\"  Legal 500, 2021 “He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\" Legal 500, 2021 \"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\"  Chambers Global, 2020 \"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\" Chambers Global, 2020 Guildhall University, London  King's College, University of London, UK  Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne  England and Wales France Represented Shell and Chevron in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion. Currently representing Shell in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project. Currently representing CA Investment in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars. Represented a consortium of energy companies in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs. Represented GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million. Currently representing SL Mining and Gerald International in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients’ investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court. Currently representing InterGlobe Enterprises in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India’s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief. Currently representing a buyer of LNG in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller. Represented an Indian business house in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs. Represented Dow Chemical as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion—one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC. Represented one of the world’s largest multinationals as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed). Represented ConocoPhillips China in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed. Represented a large independent oil company in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court. Represented a U.S. satellite communications provider in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client’s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought. Represented Garanti Koza LLP, a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan’s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits. Represented an Asian construction contractor in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs. Represented Malaysian Historical Salvors in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia. Represented SGS as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed). Represented Samsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.","searchable_name":"John Savage, K.C.","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":441657,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3111,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp style=\"background: white;\"\u003eJan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post\u0026ndash;merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has been recognized as leader in his field by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand other leading legal guides. He was named\u0026nbsp;Lawyer of the Year\u0026nbsp;for Arbitration\u0026nbsp;by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u0026nbsp;2021/22\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;have been naming\u0026nbsp;Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee\u0026nbsp;of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jan-schaefer","email":"jschaefer@kslaw.com","phone":"+49 171 3041424","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejet broker\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a major European charter airline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Korean industrial company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German automotive company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S agricultural company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious German investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICSID cases against Spain (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and other investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID case against Italy (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German utility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea managing director\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director\u0026rsquo;s liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emulti-party ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePolish and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDutch parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRussian and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Luxembourg parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Australian parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schaefer","nick_name":"Jan","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"K.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market","detail":"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\"","detail":"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting"},{"title":"\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Competent interlocutor\"","detail":"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client"},{"title":"\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2020"},{"title":"\"Great Arbitrator\"","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List","detail":"Leaders League"},{"title":"\"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"Approachable and very prompt\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\"","detail":"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Persuasive logical argumentation\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"One of the leading arbitrators\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Fast, precise, professional“ ","detail":"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\"","detail":"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015"},{"title":"\"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.”","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2014"},{"title":"\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2014"},{"title":"\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2013"},{"title":"\"A great orator who can convince other people.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2012"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"de":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer ist Partner im Frankfurter B\u0026uuml;ro von King \u0026amp; Spalding und leitet die deutsche Konfliktl\u0026ouml;sungspraxis der Kanzlei. Er vertritt ausl\u0026auml;ndische und deutsche Mandanten in deutschen und grenz\u0026uuml;berschreitenden Post-M\u0026amp;A-, Joint-Venture-, Vertriebs-, Verkaufs- und Lizenzangelegenheiten sowie in Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Auslandsinvestitionen, mit Anlagenbau und im Energiebereich. Er tritt vor deutschen Gerichten in erster und zweiter Instanz auf, u.a. bei der Beweisaufnahme f\u0026uuml;r ausl\u0026auml;ndische Verfahren, im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz und bei Vollstreckungsantr\u0026auml;gen und ist ein gefragter internationaler Schiedsrichter.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer vertritt Mandanten als Berater und Anwalt in komplexen und anspruchsvollen Schiedsverfahren, die nach verschiedenen Schiedsgerichtsordnungen durchgef\u0026uuml;hrt werden, darunter die der ICC, der DIS (Deutsche Institution f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit), der SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) und der ICSID an verschiedenen Gerichtsstandorten. Er hat auch Erfahrung in Ad-hoc-Verfahren nach der UNCITRAL-Schiedsgerichtsordnung.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEr ber\u0026auml;t seine Mandanten regelm\u0026auml;\u0026szlig;ig in Fragen der Compliance und Korruptionspr\u0026auml;vention. In mehreren Post-M\u0026amp;A F\u0026auml;llen hat er zur Strategieabstimmung eng mit Strafverteidigern zusammengearbeitet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer war als Vorsitzender, parteibenannter Schiedsrichter, Einzelschiedsrichter oder Eilschiedsrichter in mehr als 70 Schiedsverfahren unter diversen Schiedsordnungen, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich Ad-hoc-Verfahren, t\u0026auml;tig. Er ber\u0026auml;t seine Mandanten auch bei der effektiven und effizienten Beilegung von Streitigkeiten in fr\u0026uuml;hen Verhandlungsphasen, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich des Einsatzes alternativer Streitbeilegungsverfahren.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer wurde von \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e und anderen f\u0026uuml;hrenden Publikationen als f\u0026uuml;hrender Anwalt im Bereich Konfliktl\u0026ouml;sung und Arbitration anerkannt. Er wurde von \u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt \u003c/em\u003eund \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e 2021/22 zum Anwalt des Jahres f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsverfahren augezeichnet. \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e und \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e f\u0026uuml;hren Jan K Sch\u0026auml;fer seit vielen Jahren als \"F\u0026uuml;hrenden Namen\" f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsgerichtbarkeit. \u003cem\u003eWirtschaftsWoche\u003c/em\u003e hat Jan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer zum Top Anwalt f\u0026uuml;r Arbitration 2023 ausgezeichnet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEr ist Vorstandsmitglied der DIS, der SCC und der Dutch Arbitration Association und Mitglied der ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. Er spricht Englisch, Deutsch, Niederl\u0026auml;ndisch und etwas Franz\u0026ouml;sisch.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Anwalt für Arbitration 2023","detail":"WirtschaftsWoche"},{"title":"\"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" und \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"\"Führender Name\" im Bereich Streitbeilegung: Arbitration (einschließlich internationaler Arbitration)","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"\"Führender Name\": Konfliktlösung: Parteivertreter in Schiedsverfahren und Schiedsrichter","detail":"JUVE Handuch Wirtschaftskanzleien, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Anwalt des Jahres für Schiedsverfahren","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2021/24"},{"title":"Anwalt des Jahres für Internationale Schiedsverfahren","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Geführt unter Deutschland's Besten Anwälten für Schiedsverfahren und Konfliktlösung","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"„Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"„internat. erfahrener Schiedsrichter, sehr gute Verhandlungsführung“","detail":"JUVE 2022/23, Mandant"},{"title":"„Jan Schäfer: Sehr erfahren, vor allem im Bereich Investitionsstreitigkeiten und energierechtlichen Streitigkeiten.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Mandant"},{"title":"„Jan Schäfer ist ein herausragender, sehr erfahrener Anwalt in internationalen Schiedsverfahren. Persönlich sehr angenehm im Umgang. Exzellenter, einfühlsamer Schiedsrichter.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Mandant"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"},{"title":"Thought Leader bei Arbitration und Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lexology Index (ehem. Who's Who Legal) 2025"}]},"en":{"bio":"\u003cp style=\"background: white;\"\u003eJan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post\u0026ndash;merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has been recognized as leader in his field by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand other leading legal guides. He was named\u0026nbsp;Lawyer of the Year\u0026nbsp;for Arbitration\u0026nbsp;by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u0026nbsp;2021/22\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;have been naming\u0026nbsp;Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee\u0026nbsp;of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejet broker\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a major European charter airline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Korean industrial company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German automotive company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S agricultural company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious German investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICSID cases against Spain (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and other investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID case against Italy (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German utility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea managing director\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director\u0026rsquo;s liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emulti-party ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePolish and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDutch parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRussian and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Luxembourg parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Australian parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market","detail":"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\"","detail":"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting"},{"title":"\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Competent interlocutor\"","detail":"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client"},{"title":"\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2020"},{"title":"\"Great Arbitrator\"","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List","detail":"Leaders League"},{"title":"\"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"Approachable and very prompt\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\"","detail":"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Persuasive logical argumentation\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"One of the leading arbitrators\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Fast, precise, professional“ ","detail":"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\"","detail":"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015"},{"title":"\"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.”","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2014"},{"title":"\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2014"},{"title":"\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2013"},{"title":"\"A great orator who can convince other people.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2012"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"}]},"locales":["en","de"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1167}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-10-23T20:34:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-23T20:34:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Schaefer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as \\\"Leading Individual\\\" for Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as \\\"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\\\" and \\\"Arbitration Counsel\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Foreign Expert for Netherlands \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Competent interlocutor\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Great Arbitrator\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leaders League\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Top-notch counsel\\\" and a \\\"go-to arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Approachable and very prompt\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Persuasive logical argumentation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the leading arbitrators\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fast, precise, professional“ \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Expansive advocacy skills\\\" and \\\"good commercial understanding.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great orator who can convince other people.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"45 Under 45\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a jet broker in a dispute with a major European charter airline.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Korean industrial company in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German insurance company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch construction company in DIS arbitration proceedings, Düsseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German automotive company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German technology company in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Middle Eastern gas company in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S agricultural company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.{{ FIELD }}Representing various German investors in ICSID cases against Spain (Mathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).{{ FIELD }}Representing German and other investors in an ICSID case against Italy (ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).{{ FIELD }}Advising a German utility company in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European company in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. technology company in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Advising a U.S. energy company on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch construction company in litigation proceedings before the district court in Düsseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a managing director in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director’s liability.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international bank in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a SCC arbitration, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multi-party ICC arbitration, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, Polish and German parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Party-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Düsseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Party-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration, Dutch parties, Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in an ICC arbitration, Russian and German parties, Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German and Luxembourg parties, German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.{{ FIELD }}Sole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration, German and Australian parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.{{ FIELD }}Jan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator. \nWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post–merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\nJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\nJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\nJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\nJan has been recognized as leader in his field by Chambers Global, Chambers Europe, Legal 500, JUVE and other leading legal guides. He was named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration by Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers 2021/22. JUVE and Legal 500 have been naming Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\nJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\n  Partner Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation  Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025 Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025 Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25 Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\" Chambers Global, 2017-2025 Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024 Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21 Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025 Foreign Expert for Netherlands  Chambers Global, 2018-2025 \"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\" JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting \"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\" Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting \"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\" Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting \"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\"  Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Competent interlocutor\" JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client \"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\" Chambers Europe, 2020 \"Great Arbitrator\" JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors \"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List Leaders League \"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\" Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers \"Approachable and very prompt\"  Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients \"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\" JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors \"Persuasive logical argumentation\" Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients \"One of the leading arbitrators\" Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors \"Fast, precise, professional“  JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors \"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\" Chambers Global, 2017 \"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\" International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015 \"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.” Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers \"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\" Chambers Global, 2014 \"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\" Chambers Europe, 2014 \"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\" Chambers Europe, 2013 \"A great orator who can convince other people.\" Chambers Europe, 2012 45 Under 45 Global Arbitration Review, 2011 Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001 London Court of International Arbitration, 2001 Frankfurt Frankfurt Court of Appeals Frankfurt, Germany (#135101) Representing a jet broker in a dispute with a major European charter airline. Representing a Korean industrial company in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim. Representing an Eastern European renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims. Representing a U.S. renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute. Representing a German insurance company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option. Representing a Dutch construction company in DIS arbitration proceedings, Düsseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims. Representing a German automotive company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment. Representing a German technology company in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel. Representing a Middle Eastern gas company in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law. Representing a U.S agricultural company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements. Representing various German investors in ICSID cases against Spain (Mathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25). Representing German and other investors in an ICSID case against Italy (ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5). Advising a German utility company in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties. Representing an Eastern European company in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich. Representing a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund. Representing a U.S. technology company in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings. Advising a U.S. energy company on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award. Representing a Dutch construction company in litigation proceedings before the district court in Düsseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Representing a managing director in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director’s liability. Representing an international bank in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Chairman in a SCC arbitration, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry. Chairman in a multi-party ICC arbitration, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law. Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims. Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, Polish and German parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Party-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Düsseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Party-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration, Dutch parties, Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Chairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant. Chairman in an ICC arbitration, Russian and German parties, Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale. Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German and Luxembourg parties, German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract. Sole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration, German and Australian parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.","searchable_name":"Jan K. Schaefer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447013,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6445,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRichard Sharpe is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Singapore office and a member of the firm's Special Matters and Government Investigations Group.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRichard assists multinational clients across the Asia-Pacific and Middle East region with a variety of business-related criminal matters and cross-border investigations, including anti-bribery and corruption, anti-money laundering, international sanctions, cyber-crime and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn England and Wales barrister, and a\u0026nbsp;Hong Kong-qualified solicitor, Richard\u0026rsquo;s experience includes representing businesses and individuals under investigation by various international regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, the U.K Serious Fraud Office, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Richard has significant experience of conducting complex civil litigation and arbitrations arising from fraud and other criminal misconduct, as well as obtaining supporting ancillary relief. He also advises global companies on investment-related international risk and the design and implementation of compliance programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRichard was a barrister in England and Wales for the first 11 years of practice, focusing on the prosecution and defence of complex business crime and civil asset recovery, before relocating to Hong Kong in 2013. Richard has been recognised in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global and Asia-Pacific\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the category of Corporate Investigations / Anti-Corruption: International since 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Chambers Asia-Pacific 2024, clients note \"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics\u0026nbsp;and what clients are looking to achieve\", and \"Richard is a great communicator, and\u0026nbsp;can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice\".\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;interview, clients describe Richard as \u0026ldquo;a total professional\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;understands the region well.\u0026rdquo;, and notes that he advises global organisations on a range of compliance mandates including anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and trade controls.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients further noted \u0026ldquo;Richard Sharpe receives praise for his ability to handle complex regulatory investigations and is singled out for his expert knowledge of the UK Bribery Act. Sources note that his experience acting in court as a barrister in the UK enables him to \u0026lsquo;appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think\u0026rsquo; and gives him \u0026lsquo;a great edge\u0026rsquo;. Clients refer to him as a \u0026lsquo;star performer,\u0026rsquo; citing his \u0026lsquo;excellent advice\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;strong work product\u0026rsquo; as key strengths.\u0026rdquo; Clients describe him as a good guy who is making an impact\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;note: \u0026ldquo;he knows what he is doing.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Hong Kong: \u0026ldquo;Richard Sharpe is qualified as a barrister in London and solicitor in Hong Kong, giving him a \u0026lsquo;unique perspective to analyze complex regulatory/white-collar issues\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"richard-sharpe","email":"rsharpe@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArbitration and litigation\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Cayman law governed HKIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Hong Kong), in connection with a claim against a limited partner of the fund for approximately USD 1bn, for breach of confidentiality. This was one of the first ever significant hearings in the HKIAC, conducted via Zoom.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eICC arbitration proceedings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(seated in New York), and ancillary Hong Kong High Court proceedings in connection with a shareholders\u0026rsquo; dispute in Hong Kong, arising from U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea multinational professional services firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hong Kong High Court contempt of court proceedings, arising from a dispute over the enforceability of inter-jurisdictional disclosure obligations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in CIETAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Beijing) in connection with claims of fraud arising from the purchase of a business in the PRC (value in excess of USD 250m) (including conducting the advocacy in the High Court of Hong Kong to freeze more than USD 250m Worldwide).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eon international trade finance fraud\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims approaching USD 1bn arising out of a multi-jurisdictional insolvency.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity arm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eof an international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Singapore) in connection with claims of fraud arising from a direct equity investment in an Indian movie company (value in excess of USD 60m).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three LCIA arbitration proceedings (seated in London) with a combined value of USD 85m, against a Russian-Mongolian SOE and a Mongolian conglomerate in connection with the bank's investment in one of the World's largest copper mines, and fraud arising from the related structured facilities and security arrangements. Also acted in the connected England and Wales High Court litigation relating to separate facilities worth USD 60m.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive advocacy experience of obtaining ancillary relief (in particular Mareva relief) in support of international arbitrations and commercial litigation in Hong Kong.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestigations\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eConducted a wide ranging investigation into FCPA and insider trading allegations in the China real estate business of a New York listed, public company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the portfolio company of a US private equity company in the first negotiated settlement with the Hong Kong Competition Commission, for cartelling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation into multi-million US dollar employee fraud in the Hong Kong offices of a SFC and SEC regulated fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an audit committee investigation into fraudulent accounting allegations in a global energy services platform in the Middle East, ultimately owned by a New York listed, public company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in a 5 year, wide ranging internal investigation and representation of a Chinese telecommunications company (ZTE) in a significant export controls and economic sanctions investigation by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce (BIS), and Treasury (OFAC). This culminated in the largest ever settlement for an export controls violation (USD 1.2bn).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in the representation of the Hong Kong branch of a PRC bank under investigation by the HKMA/ICAC for anti-corruption offences, including being scrambled to the dawn raid on the premises by the ICAC, following which the branch's CEO and 2 other staff members were arrested and prosecuted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in the representation of an international bank under HKMA regulatory investigation into a widespread banking fraud perpetrated by a member of retail staff (who was arrested and prosecuted), as well as conducting the associated litigation (conducted the advocacy in Hong Kong to freeze USD 26m).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in a regulatory investigation into the theft by staff of a global re-insurer of commercially sensitive IP from a key rival. The case involved interactions with the HKCIB, the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the ICAC, as well as litigation arising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in an anti-corruption investigation into a MNC's practices in Hong Kong and the PRC, from a FCPA, UKBA, Hong Kong, and PRC law perspective.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in the representation of an international bank under investigation by the SFC into financial services misselling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMultiple representations of individuals employed by financial institutions and MNCs under investigation by the ICAC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefence of financial institution clients criminally prosecuted by Customs and Excise for offences under the Import Ordinance (including conducting Hong Kong Court advocacy) relating to technology imports.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":110,"guid":"110.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":803,"guid":"803.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sharpe","nick_name":"Richard","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Richard","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Richard Sharpe recognised as Litigation Star in Singapore","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION ASIA PACIFIC 2026"},{"title":"Richard Sharpe – Recommended Lawyer","detail":"LEGAL 500 ASIA-PACIFIC, WHITE-COLLAR CRIME - FOREIGN FIRMS, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard Sharpe is a real professional with a keen understanding of his clients' objectives.","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard actively works to find compliant solutions that facilitate their deals. ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard is a very strong individual who is able to expertly lead you through a matter. ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard has a very calm demeanour and is very approachable. ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"\"Richard always goes the extra mile and is a pleasure to work with.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"\"Richard is incredibly able, approachable and can cut through all the information with such success.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"\"Richard is someone you can give a matter to and trust that he'll take expert care of it.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"Working with Richard makes complex matters seem easy. He's a rare gem.","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"\"Richard is a great communicator and can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"\"Richard understands his clients, knows the issues we face in the region and provides timely practical advice.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORA TE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"\"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics and what clients are looking to achieve.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"\"Richard works hand in hand with the legal function and the deal team to achieve the best solution.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"Richard was named as an \"up and coming lawyer\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020, 2021, 2022 AND 2023"},{"title":"Richard is \"a total professional\" who \"understands the region well.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS GLOBAL 2020 "},{"title":"Clients refer to Richard as a 'star performer,' citing his 'excellent advice' and 'strong work product' as key strengths ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020 "},{"title":"Richard can \"appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think\" giving him \"a great edge.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020 "}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-sharpe-9473b37b/?originalSubdomain=hk","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRichard Sharpe is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Singapore office and a member of the firm's Special Matters and Government Investigations Group.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRichard assists multinational clients across the Asia-Pacific and Middle East region with a variety of business-related criminal matters and cross-border investigations, including anti-bribery and corruption, anti-money laundering, international sanctions, cyber-crime and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn England and Wales barrister, and a\u0026nbsp;Hong Kong-qualified solicitor, Richard\u0026rsquo;s experience includes representing businesses and individuals under investigation by various international regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, the U.K Serious Fraud Office, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Richard has significant experience of conducting complex civil litigation and arbitrations arising from fraud and other criminal misconduct, as well as obtaining supporting ancillary relief. He also advises global companies on investment-related international risk and the design and implementation of compliance programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRichard was a barrister in England and Wales for the first 11 years of practice, focusing on the prosecution and defence of complex business crime and civil asset recovery, before relocating to Hong Kong in 2013. Richard has been recognised in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global and Asia-Pacific\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the category of Corporate Investigations / Anti-Corruption: International since 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Chambers Asia-Pacific 2024, clients note \"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics\u0026nbsp;and what clients are looking to achieve\", and \"Richard is a great communicator, and\u0026nbsp;can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice\".\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;interview, clients describe Richard as \u0026ldquo;a total professional\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;understands the region well.\u0026rdquo;, and notes that he advises global organisations on a range of compliance mandates including anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and trade controls.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients further noted \u0026ldquo;Richard Sharpe receives praise for his ability to handle complex regulatory investigations and is singled out for his expert knowledge of the UK Bribery Act. Sources note that his experience acting in court as a barrister in the UK enables him to \u0026lsquo;appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think\u0026rsquo; and gives him \u0026lsquo;a great edge\u0026rsquo;. Clients refer to him as a \u0026lsquo;star performer,\u0026rsquo; citing his \u0026lsquo;excellent advice\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;strong work product\u0026rsquo; as key strengths.\u0026rdquo; Clients describe him as a good guy who is making an impact\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;note: \u0026ldquo;he knows what he is doing.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Hong Kong: \u0026ldquo;Richard Sharpe is qualified as a barrister in London and solicitor in Hong Kong, giving him a \u0026lsquo;unique perspective to analyze complex regulatory/white-collar issues\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArbitration and litigation\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Cayman law governed HKIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Hong Kong), in connection with a claim against a limited partner of the fund for approximately USD 1bn, for breach of confidentiality. This was one of the first ever significant hearings in the HKIAC, conducted via Zoom.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eICC arbitration proceedings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(seated in New York), and ancillary Hong Kong High Court proceedings in connection with a shareholders\u0026rsquo; dispute in Hong Kong, arising from U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea multinational professional services firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hong Kong High Court contempt of court proceedings, arising from a dispute over the enforceability of inter-jurisdictional disclosure obligations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in CIETAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Beijing) in connection with claims of fraud arising from the purchase of a business in the PRC (value in excess of USD 250m) (including conducting the advocacy in the High Court of Hong Kong to freeze more than USD 250m Worldwide).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eon international trade finance fraud\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims approaching USD 1bn arising out of a multi-jurisdictional insolvency.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity arm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eof an international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Singapore) in connection with claims of fraud arising from a direct equity investment in an Indian movie company (value in excess of USD 60m).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three LCIA arbitration proceedings (seated in London) with a combined value of USD 85m, against a Russian-Mongolian SOE and a Mongolian conglomerate in connection with the bank's investment in one of the World's largest copper mines, and fraud arising from the related structured facilities and security arrangements. Also acted in the connected England and Wales High Court litigation relating to separate facilities worth USD 60m.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive advocacy experience of obtaining ancillary relief (in particular Mareva relief) in support of international arbitrations and commercial litigation in Hong Kong.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestigations\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eConducted a wide ranging investigation into FCPA and insider trading allegations in the China real estate business of a New York listed, public company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the portfolio company of a US private equity company in the first negotiated settlement with the Hong Kong Competition Commission, for cartelling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation into multi-million US dollar employee fraud in the Hong Kong offices of a SFC and SEC regulated fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an audit committee investigation into fraudulent accounting allegations in a global energy services platform in the Middle East, ultimately owned by a New York listed, public company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in a 5 year, wide ranging internal investigation and representation of a Chinese telecommunications company (ZTE) in a significant export controls and economic sanctions investigation by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce (BIS), and Treasury (OFAC). This culminated in the largest ever settlement for an export controls violation (USD 1.2bn).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in the representation of the Hong Kong branch of a PRC bank under investigation by the HKMA/ICAC for anti-corruption offences, including being scrambled to the dawn raid on the premises by the ICAC, following which the branch's CEO and 2 other staff members were arrested and prosecuted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in the representation of an international bank under HKMA regulatory investigation into a widespread banking fraud perpetrated by a member of retail staff (who was arrested and prosecuted), as well as conducting the associated litigation (conducted the advocacy in Hong Kong to freeze USD 26m).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in a regulatory investigation into the theft by staff of a global re-insurer of commercially sensitive IP from a key rival. The case involved interactions with the HKCIB, the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the ICAC, as well as litigation arising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in an anti-corruption investigation into a MNC's practices in Hong Kong and the PRC, from a FCPA, UKBA, Hong Kong, and PRC law perspective.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed in the representation of an international bank under investigation by the SFC into financial services misselling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMultiple representations of individuals employed by financial institutions and MNCs under investigation by the ICAC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefence of financial institution clients criminally prosecuted by Customs and Excise for offences under the Import Ordinance (including conducting Hong Kong Court advocacy) relating to technology imports.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Richard Sharpe recognised as Litigation Star in Singapore","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION ASIA PACIFIC 2026"},{"title":"Richard Sharpe – Recommended Lawyer","detail":"LEGAL 500 ASIA-PACIFIC, WHITE-COLLAR CRIME - FOREIGN FIRMS, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard Sharpe is a real professional with a keen understanding of his clients' objectives.","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard actively works to find compliant solutions that facilitate their deals. ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard is a very strong individual who is able to expertly lead you through a matter. ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"Richard has a very calm demeanour and is very approachable. ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026"},{"title":"\"Richard always goes the extra mile and is a pleasure to work with.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"\"Richard is incredibly able, approachable and can cut through all the information with such success.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"\"Richard is someone you can give a matter to and trust that he'll take expert care of it.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"Working with Richard makes complex matters seem easy. He's a rare gem.","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 "},{"title":"\"Richard is a great communicator and can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"\"Richard understands his clients, knows the issues we face in the region and provides timely practical advice.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORA TE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"\"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics and what clients are looking to achieve.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"\"Richard works hand in hand with the legal function and the deal team to achieve the best solution.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 "},{"title":"Richard was named as an \"up and coming lawyer\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020, 2021, 2022 AND 2023"},{"title":"Richard is \"a total professional\" who \"understands the region well.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS GLOBAL 2020 "},{"title":"Clients refer to Richard as a 'star performer,' citing his 'excellent advice' and 'strong work product' as key strengths ","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020 "},{"title":"Richard can \"appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think\" giving him \"a great edge.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020 "}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10889}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-03-25T20:43:15.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-25T20:43:15.000Z","searchable_text":"Sharpe{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard Sharpe recognised as Litigation Star in Singapore\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION ASIA PACIFIC 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard Sharpe – Recommended Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500 ASIA-PACIFIC, WHITE-COLLAR CRIME - FOREIGN FIRMS, SINGAPORE 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard Sharpe is a real professional with a keen understanding of his clients' objectives.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard actively works to find compliant solutions that facilitate their deals. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard is a very strong individual who is able to expertly lead you through a matter. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard has a very calm demeanour and is very approachable. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard always goes the extra mile and is a pleasure to work with.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard is incredibly able, approachable and can cut through all the information with such success.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard is someone you can give a matter to and trust that he'll take expert care of it.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Working with Richard makes complex matters seem easy. He's a rare gem.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard is a great communicator and can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard understands his clients, knows the issues we face in the region and provides timely practical advice.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORA TE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics and what clients are looking to achieve.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Richard works hand in hand with the legal function and the deal team to achieve the best solution.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard was named as an \\\"up and coming lawyer\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020, 2021, 2022 AND 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard is \\\"a total professional\\\" who \\\"understands the region well.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS GLOBAL 2020 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Clients refer to Richard as a 'star performer,' citing his 'excellent advice' and 'strong work product' as key strengths \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Richard can \\\"appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think\\\" giving him \\\"a great edge.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020 \"}{{ FIELD }}Arbitration and litigationActed for an international private equity fund in Cayman law governed HKIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Hong Kong), in connection with a claim against a limited partner of the fund for approximately USD 1bn, for breach of confidentiality. This was one of the first ever significant hearings in the HKIAC, conducted via Zoom.{{ FIELD }}Acted in ICC arbitration proceedings (seated in New York), and ancillary Hong Kong High Court proceedings in connection with a shareholders’ dispute in Hong Kong, arising from U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Acted for a multinational professional services firm in Hong Kong High Court contempt of court proceedings, arising from a dispute over the enforceability of inter-jurisdictional disclosure obligations.{{ FIELD }}Acted for an international private equity fund in CIETAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Beijing) in connection with claims of fraud arising from the purchase of a business in the PRC (value in excess of USD 250m) (including conducting the advocacy in the High Court of Hong Kong to freeze more than USD 250m Worldwide).{{ FIELD }}Advised on international trade finance fraud claims approaching USD 1bn arising out of a multi-jurisdictional insolvency.{{ FIELD }}Acted for the private equity arm of an international bank in SIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Singapore) in connection with claims of fraud arising from a direct equity investment in an Indian movie company (value in excess of USD 60m).{{ FIELD }}Acted for an international bank in three LCIA arbitration proceedings (seated in London) with a combined value of USD 85m, against a Russian-Mongolian SOE and a Mongolian conglomerate in connection with the bank's investment in one of the World's largest copper mines, and fraud arising from the related structured facilities and security arrangements. Also acted in the connected England and Wales High Court litigation relating to separate facilities worth USD 60m.{{ FIELD }}Extensive advocacy experience of obtaining ancillary relief (in particular Mareva relief) in support of international arbitrations and commercial litigation in Hong Kong.{{ FIELD }}InvestigationsConducted a wide ranging investigation into FCPA and insider trading allegations in the China real estate business of a New York listed, public company.{{ FIELD }}Represented the portfolio company of a US private equity company in the first negotiated settlement with the Hong Kong Competition Commission, for cartelling.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation into multi-million US dollar employee fraud in the Hong Kong offices of a SFC and SEC regulated fund.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an audit committee investigation into fraudulent accounting allegations in a global energy services platform in the Middle East, ultimately owned by a New York listed, public company.{{ FIELD }}Acted in a 5 year, wide ranging internal investigation and representation of a Chinese telecommunications company (ZTE) in a significant export controls and economic sanctions investigation by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce (BIS), and Treasury (OFAC). This culminated in the largest ever settlement for an export controls violation (USD 1.2bn).{{ FIELD }}Acted in the representation of the Hong Kong branch of a PRC bank under investigation by the HKMA/ICAC for anti-corruption offences, including being scrambled to the dawn raid on the premises by the ICAC, following which the branch's CEO and 2 other staff members were arrested and prosecuted.{{ FIELD }}Acted in the representation of an international bank under HKMA regulatory investigation into a widespread banking fraud perpetrated by a member of retail staff (who was arrested and prosecuted), as well as conducting the associated litigation (conducted the advocacy in Hong Kong to freeze USD 26m).{{ FIELD }}Acted in a regulatory investigation into the theft by staff of a global re-insurer of commercially sensitive IP from a key rival. The case involved interactions with the HKCIB, the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the ICAC, as well as litigation arising.{{ FIELD }}Acted in an anti-corruption investigation into a MNC's practices in Hong Kong and the PRC, from a FCPA, UKBA, Hong Kong, and PRC law perspective.{{ FIELD }}Acted in the representation of an international bank under investigation by the SFC into financial services misselling.{{ FIELD }}Multiple representations of individuals employed by financial institutions and MNCs under investigation by the ICAC.{{ FIELD }}Defence of financial institution clients criminally prosecuted by Customs and Excise for offences under the Import Ordinance (including conducting Hong Kong Court advocacy) relating to technology imports.{{ FIELD }}Richard Sharpe is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Singapore office and a member of the firm's Special Matters and Government Investigations Group.\nRichard assists multinational clients across the Asia-Pacific and Middle East region with a variety of business-related criminal matters and cross-border investigations, including anti-bribery and corruption, anti-money laundering, international sanctions, cyber-crime and fraud.\nAn England and Wales barrister, and a Hong Kong-qualified solicitor, Richard’s experience includes representing businesses and individuals under investigation by various international regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, the U.K Serious Fraud Office, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.\nIn addition, Richard has significant experience of conducting complex civil litigation and arbitrations arising from fraud and other criminal misconduct, as well as obtaining supporting ancillary relief. He also advises global companies on investment-related international risk and the design and implementation of compliance programs.\nRichard was a barrister in England and Wales for the first 11 years of practice, focusing on the prosecution and defence of complex business crime and civil asset recovery, before relocating to Hong Kong in 2013. Richard has been recognised in Chambers Global and Asia-Pacific in the category of Corporate Investigations / Anti-Corruption: International since 2020.\nIn Chambers Asia-Pacific 2024, clients note \"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics and what clients are looking to achieve\", and \"Richard is a great communicator, and can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice\".\nIn a Chambers Global interview, clients describe Richard as “a total professional” who “understands the region well.”, and notes that he advises global organisations on a range of compliance mandates including anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and trade controls.\nClients further noted “Richard Sharpe receives praise for his ability to handle complex regulatory investigations and is singled out for his expert knowledge of the UK Bribery Act. Sources note that his experience acting in court as a barrister in the UK enables him to ‘appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think’ and gives him ‘a great edge’. Clients refer to him as a ‘star performer,’ citing his ‘excellent advice’ and ‘strong work product’ as key strengths.” Clients describe him as a good guy who is making an impact” note: “he knows what he is doing.”\nLegal 500 Hong Kong: “Richard Sharpe is qualified as a barrister in London and solicitor in Hong Kong, giving him a ‘unique perspective to analyze complex regulatory/white-collar issues Partner Richard Sharpe recognised as Litigation Star in Singapore BENCHMARK LITIGATION ASIA PACIFIC 2026 Richard Sharpe – Recommended Lawyer LEGAL 500 ASIA-PACIFIC, WHITE-COLLAR CRIME - FOREIGN FIRMS, SINGAPORE 2026 Richard Sharpe is a real professional with a keen understanding of his clients' objectives. CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026 Richard actively works to find compliant solutions that facilitate their deals.  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026 Richard is a very strong individual who is able to expertly lead you through a matter.  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026 Richard has a very calm demeanour and is very approachable.  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATION / ANTI-CORRUPTION, SINGAPORE 2026 \"Richard always goes the extra mile and is a pleasure to work with.\" CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025  \"Richard is incredibly able, approachable and can cut through all the information with such success.\"  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025  \"Richard is someone you can give a matter to and trust that he'll take expert care of it.\" CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025  Working with Richard makes complex matters seem easy. He's a rare gem. CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2025  \"Richard is a great communicator and can distil very complex regulatory matters into manageable and clear advice.\"  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024  \"Richard understands his clients, knows the issues we face in the region and provides timely practical advice.\"  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORA TE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024  \"Richard is great, super responsive, fully understands commercial dynamics and what clients are looking to achieve.\"  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024  \"Richard works hand in hand with the legal function and the deal team to achieve the best solution.\"  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC, CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS/ANTI-CORRUPTION: INTERNATIONAL, SINGAPORE 2024  Richard was named as an \"up and coming lawyer\"  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020, 2021, 2022 AND 2023 Richard is \"a total professional\" who \"understands the region well.\" CHAMBERS GLOBAL 2020  Clients refer to Richard as a 'star performer,' citing his 'excellent advice' and 'strong work product' as key strengths  CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020  Richard can \"appreciate the nuances of how the prosecutors will think\" giving him \"a great edge.\" CHAMBERS ASIA-PACIFIC 2020  Inns of Court School of Law, UK  Oxford University, UK  England and Wales Hong Kong Arbitration and litigationActed for an international private equity fund in Cayman law governed HKIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Hong Kong), in connection with a claim against a limited partner of the fund for approximately USD 1bn, for breach of confidentiality. This was one of the first ever significant hearings in the HKIAC, conducted via Zoom. Acted in ICC arbitration proceedings (seated in New York), and ancillary Hong Kong High Court proceedings in connection with a shareholders’ dispute in Hong Kong, arising from U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings. Acted for a multinational professional services firm in Hong Kong High Court contempt of court proceedings, arising from a dispute over the enforceability of inter-jurisdictional disclosure obligations. Acted for an international private equity fund in CIETAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Beijing) in connection with claims of fraud arising from the purchase of a business in the PRC (value in excess of USD 250m) (including conducting the advocacy in the High Court of Hong Kong to freeze more than USD 250m Worldwide). Advised on international trade finance fraud claims approaching USD 1bn arising out of a multi-jurisdictional insolvency. Acted for the private equity arm of an international bank in SIAC arbitration proceedings (seated in Singapore) in connection with claims of fraud arising from a direct equity investment in an Indian movie company (value in excess of USD 60m). Acted for an international bank in three LCIA arbitration proceedings (seated in London) with a combined value of USD 85m, against a Russian-Mongolian SOE and a Mongolian conglomerate in connection with the bank's investment in one of the World's largest copper mines, and fraud arising from the related structured facilities and security arrangements. Also acted in the connected England and Wales High Court litigation relating to separate facilities worth USD 60m. Extensive advocacy experience of obtaining ancillary relief (in particular Mareva relief) in support of international arbitrations and commercial litigation in Hong Kong. InvestigationsConducted a wide ranging investigation into FCPA and insider trading allegations in the China real estate business of a New York listed, public company. Represented the portfolio company of a US private equity company in the first negotiated settlement with the Hong Kong Competition Commission, for cartelling. Conducted an internal investigation into multi-million US dollar employee fraud in the Hong Kong offices of a SFC and SEC regulated fund. Conducted an audit committee investigation into fraudulent accounting allegations in a global energy services platform in the Middle East, ultimately owned by a New York listed, public company. Acted in a 5 year, wide ranging internal investigation and representation of a Chinese telecommunications company (ZTE) in a significant export controls and economic sanctions investigation by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce (BIS), and Treasury (OFAC). This culminated in the largest ever settlement for an export controls violation (USD 1.2bn). Acted in the representation of the Hong Kong branch of a PRC bank under investigation by the HKMA/ICAC for anti-corruption offences, including being scrambled to the dawn raid on the premises by the ICAC, following which the branch's CEO and 2 other staff members were arrested and prosecuted. Acted in the representation of an international bank under HKMA regulatory investigation into a widespread banking fraud perpetrated by a member of retail staff (who was arrested and prosecuted), as well as conducting the associated litigation (conducted the advocacy in Hong Kong to freeze USD 26m). Acted in a regulatory investigation into the theft by staff of a global re-insurer of commercially sensitive IP from a key rival. The case involved interactions with the HKCIB, the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the ICAC, as well as litigation arising. Acted in an anti-corruption investigation into a MNC's practices in Hong Kong and the PRC, from a FCPA, UKBA, Hong Kong, and PRC law perspective. Acted in the representation of an international bank under investigation by the SFC into financial services misselling. Multiple representations of individuals employed by financial institutions and MNCs under investigation by the ICAC. Defence of financial institution clients criminally prosecuted by Customs and Excise for offences under the Import Ordinance (including conducting Hong Kong Court advocacy) relating to technology imports.","searchable_name":"Richard Sharpe","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444020,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2024,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; With particular knowledge of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;energy, tech, and pharma industries, Elizabeth represents clients in high-profile disputes involving major\u0026nbsp;projects and long-term foreign investments.\u0026nbsp; Her cases are regularly at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice, and several exceed USD 1 billion in dispute.\u0026nbsp; Elizabeth is licensed to practice in New York, Georgia, and Texas, and has repeated experience in disputes involving the governing laws of the U.S., England, and various jurisdictions in Europe and Asia.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth solves cross-border problems for her clients, having represented\u0026nbsp;clients in dozens of investor-State and commercial arbitrations and disputes.\u0026nbsp; She specializes in complex cases involving multiple parties,\u0026nbsp;government\u0026nbsp;entities, and cross-jurisdictional aspects.\u0026nbsp; Her counsel experience includes arbitrations convened under the AAA/ICDR, CPR, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and practice in U.S. federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is particularly familiar with the legal and technical aspects of disputes in the energy, tech, and pharma industries.\u0026nbsp; She has handled numerous cases arising from long-term contracts (sale and purchase, supply, production sharing, concession,\u0026nbsp;EPC, licensing, etc.), deepening her knowledge not only of the contractual frameworks but also the practical and logistical\u0026nbsp;aspects of long-term investment projects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has experience coordinating parallel proceedings in \"viral\" disputes, including cross-border litigations, Section 1782 discovery, commercial and treaty arbitrations, and injunction and enforcement proceedings.\u0026nbsp; She also has significant experience representing major investors in treaty-based claims against States, and she regularly provides pre-dispute advice on foreign investment protection\u0026nbsp;and treaty analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlong with other accolades for her advocacy and client service, Global Arbitration Review selected Elizabeth for their\u0026nbsp;\"45 under 45\" global survey, and\u0026nbsp;Legal 500 named her a\u0026nbsp;\"Leading Lawyer\" in 2025.\u0026nbsp; In addition to her practice and frequent contributions as a speaker and author, Elizabeth acts as an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law.\u0026nbsp; She is also committed to youth development in her community, and currently\u0026nbsp;serves\u0026nbsp;on the Board of Directors for the Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club of Metro Atlanta.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"elizabeth-silbert","email":"esilbert@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asia-based power consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor U.S. LNG company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo international oil majors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHalliburton Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efrom the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 158 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 85 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. LNG company,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell Philippines Exploration B.V\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3534}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Silbert","nick_name":"Elizabeth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Elizabeth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2025"},{"title":"Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide","detail":"LawDragon, 2023 - 2025"},{"title":"Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Law360, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-silbert-b668a637/","seodescription":"Elizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; With particular knowledge of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;energy, tech, and pharma industries, Elizabeth represents clients in high-profile disputes involving major\u0026nbsp;projects and long-term foreign investments.\u0026nbsp; Her cases are regularly at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice, and several exceed USD 1 billion in dispute.\u0026nbsp; Elizabeth is licensed to practice in New York, Georgia, and Texas, and has repeated experience in disputes involving the governing laws of the U.S., England, and various jurisdictions in Europe and Asia.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth solves cross-border problems for her clients, having represented\u0026nbsp;clients in dozens of investor-State and commercial arbitrations and disputes.\u0026nbsp; She specializes in complex cases involving multiple parties,\u0026nbsp;government\u0026nbsp;entities, and cross-jurisdictional aspects.\u0026nbsp; Her counsel experience includes arbitrations convened under the AAA/ICDR, CPR, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and practice in U.S. federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is particularly familiar with the legal and technical aspects of disputes in the energy, tech, and pharma industries.\u0026nbsp; She has handled numerous cases arising from long-term contracts (sale and purchase, supply, production sharing, concession,\u0026nbsp;EPC, licensing, etc.), deepening her knowledge not only of the contractual frameworks but also the practical and logistical\u0026nbsp;aspects of long-term investment projects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has experience coordinating parallel proceedings in \"viral\" disputes, including cross-border litigations, Section 1782 discovery, commercial and treaty arbitrations, and injunction and enforcement proceedings.\u0026nbsp; She also has significant experience representing major investors in treaty-based claims against States, and she regularly provides pre-dispute advice on foreign investment protection\u0026nbsp;and treaty analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlong with other accolades for her advocacy and client service, Global Arbitration Review selected Elizabeth for their\u0026nbsp;\"45 under 45\" global survey, and\u0026nbsp;Legal 500 named her a\u0026nbsp;\"Leading Lawyer\" in 2025.\u0026nbsp; In addition to her practice and frequent contributions as a speaker and author, Elizabeth acts as an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law.\u0026nbsp; She is also committed to youth development in her community, and currently\u0026nbsp;serves\u0026nbsp;on the Board of Directors for the Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club of Metro Atlanta.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asia-based power consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor U.S. LNG company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo international oil majors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHalliburton Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efrom the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 158 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 85 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. LNG company,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell Philippines Exploration B.V\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2025"},{"title":"Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide","detail":"LawDragon, 2023 - 2025"},{"title":"Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Law360, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5815}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T20:00:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T20:00:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Silbert{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LawDragon, 2023 - 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing The Coca-Cola Company in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a major Asia-based power consortium in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European trading company in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a major U.S. LNG company in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing Chevron Corporation in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment.{{ FIELD }}Won an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of two international oil majors against a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of Halliburton Company from the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Won a US$ 158 million award on behalf of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.{{ FIELD }}Won a US$ 85 million award on behalf of a major U.S. energy company in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia.{{ FIELD }}Won a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of a U.S. LNG company, in an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement.{{ FIELD }}Won a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of Chevron Corporation in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals.{{ FIELD }}Represented Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of a European technology company in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.{{ FIELD }}Elizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group.  With particular knowledge of the energy, tech, and pharma industries, Elizabeth represents clients in high-profile disputes involving major projects and long-term foreign investments.  Her cases are regularly at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice, and several exceed USD 1 billion in dispute.  Elizabeth is licensed to practice in New York, Georgia, and Texas, and has repeated experience in disputes involving the governing laws of the U.S., England, and various jurisdictions in Europe and Asia. \nElizabeth solves cross-border problems for her clients, having represented clients in dozens of investor-State and commercial arbitrations and disputes.  She specializes in complex cases involving multiple parties, government entities, and cross-jurisdictional aspects.  Her counsel experience includes arbitrations convened under the AAA/ICDR, CPR, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and practice in U.S. federal courts. \nElizabeth is particularly familiar with the legal and technical aspects of disputes in the energy, tech, and pharma industries.  She has handled numerous cases arising from long-term contracts (sale and purchase, supply, production sharing, concession, EPC, licensing, etc.), deepening her knowledge not only of the contractual frameworks but also the practical and logistical aspects of long-term investment projects. \nShe has experience coordinating parallel proceedings in \"viral\" disputes, including cross-border litigations, Section 1782 discovery, commercial and treaty arbitrations, and injunction and enforcement proceedings.  She also has significant experience representing major investors in treaty-based claims against States, and she regularly provides pre-dispute advice on foreign investment protection and treaty analysis.\nAlong with other accolades for her advocacy and client service, Global Arbitration Review selected Elizabeth for their \"45 under 45\" global survey, and Legal 500 named her a \"Leading Lawyer\" in 2025.  In addition to her practice and frequent contributions as a speaker and author, Elizabeth acts as an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law.  She is also committed to youth development in her community, and currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club of Metro Atlanta.\n  Elizabeth Silbert lawyer Partner Leading Lawyer Legal 500 US, 2025 Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide LawDragon, 2023 - 2025 Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration Global Arbitration Review, 2023 Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner Legal 500 US, 2022-2023 Recommended Legal 500 US, 2020 Rising Star in International Arbitration Law360, 2018 Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Northwestern University Northwestern Pritzker School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia New York Texas Representing The Coca-Cola Company in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement. Represented Chevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand. Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a major Asia-based power consortium in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry. Representing a European trading company in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture. Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a major U.S. LNG company in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims. Representing Chevron Corporation in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment. Won an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of two international oil majors against a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract. Obtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of Halliburton Company from the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit. Won a US$ 158 million award on behalf of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant. Won a US$ 85 million award on behalf of a major U.S. energy company in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia. Won a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of a U.S. LNG company, in an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement. Won a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of Chevron Corporation in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals. Represented Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project. Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of a European technology company in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.","searchable_name":"Elizabeth Silbert","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446393,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7345,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"leelle-slifer","email":"lslifer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slifer","nick_name":"LeElle","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"LeElle","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/leelleslifer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13385}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Slifer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Under 40”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result.{{ FIELD }}Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.{{ FIELD }}Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.{{ FIELD }}DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.{{ FIELD }}Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.{{ FIELD }}Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.{{ FIELD }}Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.{{ FIELD }}LeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle’s clients describe her as their “go-to” lawyer who can handle any problem, “providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.” She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client’s business goals at every juncture.\nLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials—DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas—was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.\nLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients’ businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients’ objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle’s results-oriented approach:\n“I’ve had the privilege of working with many of the country’s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms—, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you’re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy—whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute—I couldn’t recommend her more highly.” – Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance. Partner Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023 Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2024 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Best Lawyers Under 40” D Magazine, 2020 “Rising Star”  Texas Super Lawyers, 2020 Duke University Duke University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Board, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Board, Teneo Network Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees. Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result. Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint. Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants. Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family. Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement. Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.","searchable_name":"LeElle B. Slifer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442426,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":171,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"reginald-smith","email":"rsmith@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":229}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smith","nick_name":"Reggie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Reginald","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1188}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Smith{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AmLaw\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Energy MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, repeated listings\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.{{ FIELD }}Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.{{ FIELD }}Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.{{ FIELD }}Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.{{ FIELD }}Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.{{ FIELD }}Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.{{ FIELD }}Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property.{{ FIELD }}U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.{{ FIELD }}Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.{{ FIELD }}U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.{{ FIELD }}Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.{{ FIELD }}Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.{{ FIELD }}Reggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.\nRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\nUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\nWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client’s business goals. Reginald R Smith Partner Litigator of the Week AmLaw Energy MVP Law360 Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation  Legal 500, repeated listings Litigation Star  Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016 Emory University Emory University School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Texas American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia State Bar of Texas Houston County Bar Association International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources. Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine. Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale. Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract. Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm. Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility. International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets. Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs. Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project. Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters. Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession. Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku. Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises. Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union. Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property. U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela. Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement. Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S. Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK. Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration. U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market. Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012. Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.","searchable_name":"Reginald R. Smith (Reggie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444625,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3346,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCedric\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Soule\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;is a \"spectacular arbitration lawyer\" with a \"razor-sharp intellect\" (\u003cem\u003eWWL 2021\u003c/em\u003e) who represents corporations in high-stakes international disputes. Trained and qualified in both the common law and the civil law, and trilingual in English, French, and Spanish, he has been involved in over 50 investment and commercial arbitrations under all major arbitration rules, and has the \"impressive ability to operate\" in all three languages \"flawlessly\" (\u003cem\u003eWWL 2021\u003c/em\u003e). Cedric also has experience in ICSID annulment proceedings and with the enforcement of arbitral awards in various jurisdictions in Europe and South America. He has been included in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal: Future Leaders \u0026ndash; Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;since 2017, is listed in the 2021 and 2022\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEuromoney's Rising Stars Expert Guide\u003c/em\u003e, and is Recommended\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Latin America 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for International Arbitration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"cedric-soule","email":"csoule@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a European multinational natural gas company in two UNCITRAL arbitrations seated in New York arising out of force majeure declarations under LNG sales contracts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a U.S. mining company against a sovereign State in parallel PCA investor-state and commercial arbitrations regarding a mining project in South America\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing UAE and Algerian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a real estate project in North Africa\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing Argentinian and Peruvian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding an airport concession in South America\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a Turkish telecoms company against a South African telecoms company in international litigation regarding the award of a GSM license in the Middle East\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing, on a pro bono basis, an international agricultural biotech foundation that has received the largest Gates grant given to an African entity\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Australia's largest oil company against an Australian junior in an ICC arbitration regarding a preemption right under a JOA in relation a project in West Africa\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a Canadian mining company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a UK mining company against a sovereign State in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a global corporation against a South American travel agency in an ICC arbitration regarding trademark infringements (obtained favorable award with costs) and in subsequent enforcement proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a Russian private power supply management company against Swedish and Russian corporations in an ICC arbitration regarding the expansion of a combined heat and power facility in Russia (obtained favorable settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a Saudi businessman against a British national in an ICC arbitration regarding the alleged breach of several contracts (obtained favorable settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a French environmental services company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding its investments in the public cleanliness industry in the Middle East\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a sovereign State against a Russian investor in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding shares in an oil refinery in the CIS\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Soule","nick_name":"Cedric","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Cedric","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":2659,"meta":{"degree":"B.C.L./LL.B.","honors":"Dean’s Honour List","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal 500 Latin America 2023"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Euromoney's Expert Guide 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star ","detail":"Euromoney's Expert Guide 2021"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2022"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2021"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2020"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2019"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2018"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2017"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCedric\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Soule\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;is a \"spectacular arbitration lawyer\" with a \"razor-sharp intellect\" (\u003cem\u003eWWL 2021\u003c/em\u003e) who represents corporations in high-stakes international disputes. Trained and qualified in both the common law and the civil law, and trilingual in English, French, and Spanish, he has been involved in over 50 investment and commercial arbitrations under all major arbitration rules, and has the \"impressive ability to operate\" in all three languages \"flawlessly\" (\u003cem\u003eWWL 2021\u003c/em\u003e). Cedric also has experience in ICSID annulment proceedings and with the enforcement of arbitral awards in various jurisdictions in Europe and South America. He has been included in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal: Future Leaders \u0026ndash; Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;since 2017, is listed in the 2021 and 2022\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEuromoney's Rising Stars Expert Guide\u003c/em\u003e, and is Recommended\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Latin America 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for International Arbitration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a European multinational natural gas company in two UNCITRAL arbitrations seated in New York arising out of force majeure declarations under LNG sales contracts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a U.S. mining company against a sovereign State in parallel PCA investor-state and commercial arbitrations regarding a mining project in South America\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing UAE and Algerian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a real estate project in North Africa\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing Argentinian and Peruvian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding an airport concession in South America\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a Turkish telecoms company against a South African telecoms company in international litigation regarding the award of a GSM license in the Middle East\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing, on a pro bono basis, an international agricultural biotech foundation that has received the largest Gates grant given to an African entity\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented Australia's largest oil company against an Australian junior in an ICC arbitration regarding a preemption right under a JOA in relation a project in West Africa\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a Canadian mining company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a UK mining company against a sovereign State in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a global corporation against a South American travel agency in an ICC arbitration regarding trademark infringements (obtained favorable award with costs) and in subsequent enforcement proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a Russian private power supply management company against Swedish and Russian corporations in an ICC arbitration regarding the expansion of a combined heat and power facility in Russia (obtained favorable settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a Saudi businessman against a British national in an ICC arbitration regarding the alleged breach of several contracts (obtained favorable settlement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a French environmental services company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding its investments in the public cleanliness industry in the Middle East\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a sovereign State against a Russian investor in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding shares in an oil refinery in the CIS\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal 500 Latin America 2023"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Euromoney's Expert Guide 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star ","detail":"Euromoney's Expert Guide 2021"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2022"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2021"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2020"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2019"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2018"},{"title":"Future Leader - Arbitration","detail":"Who's Who Legal 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4299}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T15:53:45.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T15:53:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Soule{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Latin America 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney's Expert Guide 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney's Expert Guide 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leader - Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leader - Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leader - Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leader - Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leader - Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leader - Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a European multinational natural gas company in two UNCITRAL arbitrations seated in New York arising out of force majeure declarations under LNG sales contracts{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a U.S. mining company against a sovereign State in parallel PCA investor-state and commercial arbitrations regarding a mining project in South America{{ FIELD }}Currently representing UAE and Algerian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a real estate project in North Africa{{ FIELD }}Currently representing Argentinian and Peruvian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding an airport concession in South America{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a Turkish telecoms company against a South African telecoms company in international litigation regarding the award of a GSM license in the Middle East{{ FIELD }}Currently representing, on a pro bono basis, an international agricultural biotech foundation that has received the largest Gates grant given to an African entity{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Australia's largest oil company against an Australian junior in an ICC arbitration regarding a preemption right under a JOA in relation a project in West Africa{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a Canadian mining company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a UK mining company against a sovereign State in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a global corporation against a South American travel agency in an ICC arbitration regarding trademark infringements (obtained favorable award with costs) and in subsequent enforcement proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a Russian private power supply management company against Swedish and Russian corporations in an ICC arbitration regarding the expansion of a combined heat and power facility in Russia (obtained favorable settlement){{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a Saudi businessman against a British national in an ICC arbitration regarding the alleged breach of several contracts (obtained favorable settlement){{ FIELD }}Represented a French environmental services company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding its investments in the public cleanliness industry in the Middle East{{ FIELD }}Represented a sovereign State against a Russian investor in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding shares in an oil refinery in the CIS{{ FIELD }}Cedric Soule is a \"spectacular arbitration lawyer\" with a \"razor-sharp intellect\" (WWL 2021) who represents corporations in high-stakes international disputes. Trained and qualified in both the common law and the civil law, and trilingual in English, French, and Spanish, he has been involved in over 50 investment and commercial arbitrations under all major arbitration rules, and has the \"impressive ability to operate\" in all three languages \"flawlessly\" (WWL 2021). Cedric also has experience in ICSID annulment proceedings and with the enforcement of arbitral awards in various jurisdictions in Europe and South America. He has been included in Who’s Who Legal: Future Leaders – Arbitration since 2017, is listed in the 2021 and 2022 Euromoney's Rising Stars Expert Guide, and is Recommended in Legal 500 Latin America 2023 for International Arbitration.  Partner Recommended Legal 500 Latin America 2023 Rising Star Euromoney's Expert Guide 2022 Rising Star  Euromoney's Expert Guide 2021 Future Leader - Arbitration Who's Who Legal 2022 Future Leader - Arbitration Who's Who Legal 2021 Future Leader - Arbitration Who's Who Legal 2020 Future Leader - Arbitration Who's Who Legal 2019 Future Leader - Arbitration Who's Who Legal 2018 Future Leader - Arbitration Who's Who Legal 2017 McGill University McGill University St. Hugh's College, University of Oxford, UK  New York Paris Currently representing a European multinational natural gas company in two UNCITRAL arbitrations seated in New York arising out of force majeure declarations under LNG sales contracts Currently representing a U.S. mining company against a sovereign State in parallel PCA investor-state and commercial arbitrations regarding a mining project in South America Currently representing UAE and Algerian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a real estate project in North Africa Currently representing Argentinian and Peruvian companies against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding an airport concession in South America Currently representing a Turkish telecoms company against a South African telecoms company in international litigation regarding the award of a GSM license in the Middle East Currently representing, on a pro bono basis, an international agricultural biotech foundation that has received the largest Gates grant given to an African entity Successfully represented Australia's largest oil company against an Australian junior in an ICC arbitration regarding a preemption right under a JOA in relation a project in West Africa Successfully represented a Canadian mining company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award) Successfully represented a UK mining company against a sovereign State in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding a mining project in South America (obtained favorable award) Successfully represented a global corporation against a South American travel agency in an ICC arbitration regarding trademark infringements (obtained favorable award with costs) and in subsequent enforcement proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal Successfully represented a Russian private power supply management company against Swedish and Russian corporations in an ICC arbitration regarding the expansion of a combined heat and power facility in Russia (obtained favorable settlement) Successfully represented a Saudi businessman against a British national in an ICC arbitration regarding the alleged breach of several contracts (obtained favorable settlement) Represented a French environmental services company against a sovereign State in an ICSID arbitration regarding its investments in the public cleanliness industry in the Middle East Represented a sovereign State against a Russian investor in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding shares in an oil refinery in the CIS","searchable_name":"Cedric Soule","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426370,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2965,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Sprange KC provides advocacy and strategic advice in significant, high-value and complex disputes for\u0026nbsp; a diverse range of clients, including corporations, sovereign states, financial institutions and individuals. A partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Tom acts in a broad array of matters\u0026nbsp;under local, private and public international law.\u0026nbsp; He is described by his peers as: \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;the best of the best\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;He's just a pleasure to watch, I feel sad for the other side,\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\" ,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a very sharp legal mind\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an excellent advocacy choice across dispute resolution forums\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a sharp intellect\" who praise \"the precision, energy and tenacity he projects in front of tribunals and judges\" \u0026ldquo;, and highlight his \"great cross-examination skills\", describing him as \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo; and noting that \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;He has a magnificent talent in cross-examination\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;and that \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has appeared in over 100\u0026nbsp;cases in the Chancery and King's Bench divisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including\u0026nbsp;cases relating to sovereign immunity, acts of state, conflicts of law, interpretation of contracts, civil fraud, injunctive relief and claims arising from arbitration proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has acted as Counsel in more than 300 international arbitrations in the leading arbitration institutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has experience working with clients in numerous sectors, including energy, mining, projects, construction, telecommunications, technology, financial services, real estate, pharmaceuticals, fashion and sports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is the Managing Partner of the London Office and is a former member of the Firm's Policy Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is highly ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers Global, Chambers UK, Chambers Europe, Legal 500 UK and Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Commercial Arbitration, Asset Recovery and Construction directories for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, as well as listing for Civil Fraud and Energy in the former. He is described as: \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo;,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;impressive,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;smart, percipient and energetic, \u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;commercially astute and a great lawyer\u0026rdquo; with sources adding that \u0026ldquo;his advocacy skills are brilliant\u0026rdquo; and he has \u0026ldquo;experience in a range of sectors, including aviation, energy and finance.\u0026rdquo; and that \u0026ldquo;he is very responsive, sharp and quick to seize the key issues\u0026rdquo;, that \"He has good, sharp comments at every stage of proceedings and really contributes a lot,\" \"He's smart - he thinks and understands quickly and he's good at forming case strategy.\" \"He is a top-level litigator with years of experience and he is extremely responsive.\" \"He is very effective as arbitration counsel.\" Sources also say Thomas is a \u0026ldquo;thoroughbred arbitrator who is incredibly smart, \u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;heavyweight arbitration lawyer\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;technically excellent and very creative, with a strong knowledge base and good problem-solving skills\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Furthermore, Thomas is said to combine a \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;an unparalleled work ethic and outstanding attention to client needs\u0026rdquo;; possess \u0026ldquo;extensive commercial arbitration expertise\u0026rdquo;; to \u0026ldquo;not just go the extra yard in defending his client\u0026rsquo;s position, but the extra mile\u0026rdquo;; to be an \u0026ldquo;accomplished solicitor advocate\u0026rdquo;; \"Tom is an extraordinary litigator. He has a sharp intellect from a legal standpoint and is commercially astute.\" \"He is sensible as a solicitor and impressive as an advocate\"; \"He is an extremely high-quality advocate and his work is very impressive in this space\". \"An A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\". \"He is clever, fast, reasonable, logical, knowledgeable, experienced and creative\" and has \"great cross-examination skills.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is so sharp and understands how to bring across difficult and complex issues in a pretty easy and very clear manner.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is very knowledgeable and creative in his approach.\"\u0026nbsp; \"Tom Sprange is not afraid to argue anything but with a certain charm.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\" he is \"fearless and has a very strong awareness of both the legal and commercial aspects involved\" he is a \"superb advocate full of energy and tenacity. He gets great results for major clients in hearings across the glove\" he \"provides very complete, practical and realistic advice\" he is described as an \"insightful solicitor and extremely confident in the delivery of his case in a court room\" and his knowledge and memory skills are \"truly magnificent\".\u0026nbsp; Tom has been described as a \"brilliant mind, hard-working and a pleasure to work with\" his clients \"like dealing with him and he can explain complex situations in simple terms\"\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-sprange","email":"tsprange@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent English and International Court Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLiberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGlobal Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepublic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIpek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWestwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOtuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorld Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eShapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eC v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMontvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSilver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":231}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1568,"guid":"1568.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sprange","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Tom","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"K.C.","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud","detail":"CHAMBERS UK, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud","detail":"Chambers UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation","detail":"Who’s Who Legal"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":54,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Sprange KC provides advocacy and strategic advice in significant, high-value and complex disputes for\u0026nbsp; a diverse range of clients, including corporations, sovereign states, financial institutions and individuals. A partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Tom acts in a broad array of matters\u0026nbsp;under local, private and public international law.\u0026nbsp; He is described by his peers as: \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;the best of the best\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;He's just a pleasure to watch, I feel sad for the other side,\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\" ,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a very sharp legal mind\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an excellent advocacy choice across dispute resolution forums\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a sharp intellect\" who praise \"the precision, energy and tenacity he projects in front of tribunals and judges\" \u0026ldquo;, and highlight his \"great cross-examination skills\", describing him as \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo; and noting that \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;He has a magnificent talent in cross-examination\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;and that \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has appeared in over 100\u0026nbsp;cases in the Chancery and King's Bench divisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including\u0026nbsp;cases relating to sovereign immunity, acts of state, conflicts of law, interpretation of contracts, civil fraud, injunctive relief and claims arising from arbitration proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has acted as Counsel in more than 300 international arbitrations in the leading arbitration institutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has experience working with clients in numerous sectors, including energy, mining, projects, construction, telecommunications, technology, financial services, real estate, pharmaceuticals, fashion and sports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is the Managing Partner of the London Office and is a former member of the Firm's Policy Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is highly ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers Global, Chambers UK, Chambers Europe, Legal 500 UK and Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Commercial Arbitration, Asset Recovery and Construction directories for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, as well as listing for Civil Fraud and Energy in the former. He is described as: \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo;,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;impressive,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;smart, percipient and energetic, \u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;commercially astute and a great lawyer\u0026rdquo; with sources adding that \u0026ldquo;his advocacy skills are brilliant\u0026rdquo; and he has \u0026ldquo;experience in a range of sectors, including aviation, energy and finance.\u0026rdquo; and that \u0026ldquo;he is very responsive, sharp and quick to seize the key issues\u0026rdquo;, that \"He has good, sharp comments at every stage of proceedings and really contributes a lot,\" \"He's smart - he thinks and understands quickly and he's good at forming case strategy.\" \"He is a top-level litigator with years of experience and he is extremely responsive.\" \"He is very effective as arbitration counsel.\" Sources also say Thomas is a \u0026ldquo;thoroughbred arbitrator who is incredibly smart, \u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;heavyweight arbitration lawyer\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;technically excellent and very creative, with a strong knowledge base and good problem-solving skills\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Furthermore, Thomas is said to combine a \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;an unparalleled work ethic and outstanding attention to client needs\u0026rdquo;; possess \u0026ldquo;extensive commercial arbitration expertise\u0026rdquo;; to \u0026ldquo;not just go the extra yard in defending his client\u0026rsquo;s position, but the extra mile\u0026rdquo;; to be an \u0026ldquo;accomplished solicitor advocate\u0026rdquo;; \"Tom is an extraordinary litigator. He has a sharp intellect from a legal standpoint and is commercially astute.\" \"He is sensible as a solicitor and impressive as an advocate\"; \"He is an extremely high-quality advocate and his work is very impressive in this space\". \"An A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\". \"He is clever, fast, reasonable, logical, knowledgeable, experienced and creative\" and has \"great cross-examination skills.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is so sharp and understands how to bring across difficult and complex issues in a pretty easy and very clear manner.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is very knowledgeable and creative in his approach.\"\u0026nbsp; \"Tom Sprange is not afraid to argue anything but with a certain charm.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\" he is \"fearless and has a very strong awareness of both the legal and commercial aspects involved\" he is a \"superb advocate full of energy and tenacity. He gets great results for major clients in hearings across the glove\" he \"provides very complete, practical and realistic advice\" he is described as an \"insightful solicitor and extremely confident in the delivery of his case in a court room\" and his knowledge and memory skills are \"truly magnificent\".\u0026nbsp; Tom has been described as a \"brilliant mind, hard-working and a pleasure to work with\" his clients \"like dealing with him and he can explain complex situations in simple terms\"\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent English and International Court Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLiberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGlobal Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepublic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIpek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWestwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOtuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorld Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eShapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eC v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMontvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSilver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud","detail":"CHAMBERS UK, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud","detail":"Chambers UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation","detail":"Who’s Who Legal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5368}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:59.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:59.000Z","searchable_text":"Sprange{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS UK, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}English Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity.{{ FIELD }}ICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state.{{ FIELD }}UNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law.{{ FIELD }}English Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide.{{ FIELD }}Reficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest.{{ FIELD }}English Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines.{{ FIELD }}Recent English and International Court Experience\nMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025{{ FIELD }}Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025{{ FIELD }}FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024{{ FIELD }}Liberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024{{ FIELD }}Global Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024{{ FIELD }}TWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm){{ FIELD }}CB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch){{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Jensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377{{ FIELD }}Vedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC){{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Republic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU{{ FIELD }}Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18{{ FIELD }}Westwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46{{ FIELD }}Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Hashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815{{ FIELD }}EVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012{{ FIELD }}Otuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat){{ FIELD }}Cascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4){{ FIELD }}Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022{{ FIELD }}Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562{{ FIELD }}World Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580{{ FIELD }}Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72{{ FIELD }}Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm){{ FIELD }}Shapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm){{ FIELD }}ConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524{{ FIELD }}Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11{{ FIELD }}Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019{{ FIELD }}C v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm){{ FIELD }}National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013{{ FIELD }}Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Mohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm){{ FIELD }}National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896{{ FIELD }}Montvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch){{ FIELD }}Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25{{ FIELD }}Bank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Arcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Stati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Tom Sprange KC provides advocacy and strategic advice in significant, high-value and complex disputes for  a diverse range of clients, including corporations, sovereign states, financial institutions and individuals. A partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Tom acts in a broad array of matters under local, private and public international law.  He is described by his peers as: “Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude”, “the best of the best“  “He's just a pleasure to watch, I feel sad for the other side,\"  “A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\" ,  “a superb advocate”, “class act”, “remarkable,” a “super lawyer,” “a real star,” “fantastic”, “a very sharp legal mind”, “an excellent advocacy choice across dispute resolution forums”, “a sharp intellect\" who praise \"the precision, energy and tenacity he projects in front of tribunals and judges\" “, and highlight his \"great cross-examination skills\", describing him as “a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation” and noting that \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"  “He has a magnificent talent in cross-examination“ and that \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\"\nTom has appeared in over 100 cases in the Chancery and King's Bench divisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including cases relating to sovereign immunity, acts of state, conflicts of law, interpretation of contracts, civil fraud, injunctive relief and claims arising from arbitration proceedings. \nHe has acted as Counsel in more than 300 international arbitrations in the leading arbitration institutes.\nHe has experience working with clients in numerous sectors, including energy, mining, projects, construction, telecommunications, technology, financial services, real estate, pharmaceuticals, fashion and sports.\nTom is the Managing Partner of the London Office and is a former member of the Firm's Policy Committee.\nHe is highly ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers Global, Chambers UK, Chambers Europe, Legal 500 UK and Who’s Who of Commercial Arbitration, Asset Recovery and Construction directories for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, as well as listing for Civil Fraud and Energy in the former. He is described as: “a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation”,  “a superb advocate”, “class act”, “remarkable,” a “super lawyer,” “a real star,” “fantastic,” “impressive,” “smart, percipient and energetic, ” and “commercially astute and a great lawyer” with sources adding that “his advocacy skills are brilliant” and he has “experience in a range of sectors, including aviation, energy and finance.” and that “he is very responsive, sharp and quick to seize the key issues”, that \"He has good, sharp comments at every stage of proceedings and really contributes a lot,\" \"He's smart - he thinks and understands quickly and he's good at forming case strategy.\" \"He is a top-level litigator with years of experience and he is extremely responsive.\" \"He is very effective as arbitration counsel.\" Sources also say Thomas is a “thoroughbred arbitrator who is incredibly smart, ” a “heavyweight arbitration lawyer” and “technically excellent and very creative, with a strong knowledge base and good problem-solving skills”.  Furthermore, Thomas is said to combine a “Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude” and “an unparalleled work ethic and outstanding attention to client needs”; possess “extensive commercial arbitration expertise”; to “not just go the extra yard in defending his client’s position, but the extra mile”; to be an “accomplished solicitor advocate”; \"Tom is an extraordinary litigator. He has a sharp intellect from a legal standpoint and is commercially astute.\" \"He is sensible as a solicitor and impressive as an advocate\"; \"He is an extremely high-quality advocate and his work is very impressive in this space\". \"An A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\". \"He is clever, fast, reasonable, logical, knowledgeable, experienced and creative\" and has \"great cross-examination skills.\"  \"He is so sharp and understands how to bring across difficult and complex issues in a pretty easy and very clear manner.\"  \"He is very knowledgeable and creative in his approach.\"  \"Tom Sprange is not afraid to argue anything but with a certain charm.\"   \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"  \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\" he is \"fearless and has a very strong awareness of both the legal and commercial aspects involved\" he is a \"superb advocate full of energy and tenacity. He gets great results for major clients in hearings across the glove\" he \"provides very complete, practical and realistic advice\" he is described as an \"insightful solicitor and extremely confident in the delivery of his case in a court room\" and his knowledge and memory skills are \"truly magnificent\".  Tom has been described as a \"brilliant mind, hard-working and a pleasure to work with\" his clients \"like dealing with him and he can explain complex situations in simple terms\"  Thomas K Sprange Partner Ranked for International Arbitration CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022 Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud CHAMBERS UK, 2022 Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022 Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Chambers Global, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud Chambers UK, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration Chambers Europe, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud Legal 500 UK, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation Who’s Who Legal University of Sydney, Australia  University of New South Wales  Dubai International Financial Centre Courts England and Wales Law Society of New South Wales New South Wales Ireland Acting for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions. English Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity. ICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state. UNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law. English Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide. Reficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest. English Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines. Recent English and International Court Experience\nMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025 Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025 FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024 Liberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024 Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024 Global Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024 TWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm) CB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch) Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm) Jensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377 Vedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39 Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm) Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC) Motorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm) Republic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18 Westwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46 Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14 Motorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm) Hashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815 EVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012 Otuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat) Cascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4) Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022 Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580 Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm) Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72 Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm) Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm) Shapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm) ConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524 Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm) Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11 Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019 C v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm) Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637 Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm) National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm) Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013 Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm) Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm) Mohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm) Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm) National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm) Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896 Montvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch) Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm) Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25 Bank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm) Arcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm) Stati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm) Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)","searchable_name":"Tom Sprange, K.C.","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445735,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3461,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrea Stauber is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s International Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice group, based in London.\u0026nbsp;Andrea focuses on resolving complex international commercial disputes, particularly relating to high-value engineering and construction projects in the\u0026nbsp;energy,\u0026nbsp;infrastructure and mining sectors in jurisdictions around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe advises both owners and contractors on a variety of major projects, including power plants, oil and gas processing facilities and pipelines, waste-to-energy plants, airports, roads and elevated highways, chemical plants, as well as wind and solar renewable energy projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is a Solicitor Advocate and represents clients in arbitral proceedings under all major institutional rules including ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA, UNCITRAL and ICSID. She is also experienced in litigation, adjudication, mediation and expert determination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her disputes practice, Andrea provides strategic risk management and pragmatic dispute avoidance advice throughout the execution phase of projects, with a view to achieving commercial solutions in line with her clients\u0026rsquo; business needs. Where a dispute is unavoidable, Andrea works seamlessly with her clients\u0026rsquo; project and legal teams to put them in the best possible position for any subsequent proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea had the opportunity to complete a secondment with a multi-national joint venture comprising two leading engineering and construction companies, during which she provided ongoing practical and strategic advice to project teams and management about contract administration, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in relation to the construction of a combined-cycle power plant within a LNG facility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is ranked as an 'Up and Coming' Partner by Chambers UK in Construction: International Arbitration 2025. She is recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer for International Arbitration and Construction - Contentious, and was recognised as a Rising Star on their International Arbitration Powerlist in 2019. She is noted as a \"Future Leader\" in Arbitration by Who's Who Legal. Her clients describe her as \"\u003cem\u003eremarkable\u003c/em\u003e\" and \"\u003cem\u003ea pleasure to work with\u003c/em\u003e\", and note that she \"\u003cem\u003equickly understands and orchestrates her client's case to perfection\"\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAndrea is an elected member of Council for the Society of Construction Law UK, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). She is also on the faculty of the Brunel University International Arbitration Summer School and the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Program, where she teaches oral and written advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrea-stauber","email":"astauber@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indian airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea developer of renewable energy projects\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u003cstrong\u003e international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea US-based manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u003cstrong\u003e a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading international equipment supplier\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Korean contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Indian oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eUNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. engineering and construction firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea civil infrastructure contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean East Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. satellite telecommunications firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stauber","nick_name":"Andrea","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrea","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026)"},{"title":"International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners)","detail":"Who's Who Legal (2024-2026)"},{"title":"Recommended for Construction (Contentious) ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022-2026)"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK)"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrea Stauber is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s International Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice group, based in London.\u0026nbsp;Andrea focuses on resolving complex international commercial disputes, particularly relating to high-value engineering and construction projects in the\u0026nbsp;energy,\u0026nbsp;infrastructure and mining sectors in jurisdictions around the world.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe advises both owners and contractors on a variety of major projects, including power plants, oil and gas processing facilities and pipelines, waste-to-energy plants, airports, roads and elevated highways, chemical plants, as well as wind and solar renewable energy projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is a Solicitor Advocate and represents clients in arbitral proceedings under all major institutional rules including ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA, UNCITRAL and ICSID. She is also experienced in litigation, adjudication, mediation and expert determination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to her disputes practice, Andrea provides strategic risk management and pragmatic dispute avoidance advice throughout the execution phase of projects, with a view to achieving commercial solutions in line with her clients\u0026rsquo; business needs. Where a dispute is unavoidable, Andrea works seamlessly with her clients\u0026rsquo; project and legal teams to put them in the best possible position for any subsequent proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea had the opportunity to complete a secondment with a multi-national joint venture comprising two leading engineering and construction companies, during which she provided ongoing practical and strategic advice to project teams and management about contract administration, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in relation to the construction of a combined-cycle power plant within a LNG facility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrea is ranked as an 'Up and Coming' Partner by Chambers UK in Construction: International Arbitration 2025. She is recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer for International Arbitration and Construction - Contentious, and was recognised as a Rising Star on their International Arbitration Powerlist in 2019. She is noted as a \"Future Leader\" in Arbitration by Who's Who Legal. Her clients describe her as \"\u003cem\u003eremarkable\u003c/em\u003e\" and \"\u003cem\u003ea pleasure to work with\u003c/em\u003e\", and note that she \"\u003cem\u003equickly understands and orchestrates her client's case to perfection\"\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAndrea is an elected member of Council for the Society of Construction Law UK, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). She is also on the faculty of the Brunel University International Arbitration Summer School and the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Program, where she teaches oral and written advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international EPC contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indian airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major oil and gas service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea developer of renewable energy projects\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u003cstrong\u003e international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea US-based manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u003cstrong\u003e a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading international equipment supplier\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Korean contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major Indian oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eUNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. engineering and construction firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea civil infrastructure contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean East Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. satellite telecommunications firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026)"},{"title":"International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners)","detail":"Who's Who Legal (2024-2026)"},{"title":"Recommended for Construction (Contentious) ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022-2026)"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9868},{"id":9868}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-11T19:52:08.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-11T19:52:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Stauber{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal (2024-2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Construction (Contentious) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK (2022-2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK)\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing an international EPC contractor in an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Indian airline in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law.{{ FIELD }}Advised a major oil and gas service provider with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Represented for a major chemical company in relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales.{{ FIELD }}Represented a developer of renewable energy projects in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international contractor in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait.{{ FIELD }}Advised international contractor in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana.{{ FIELD }}Represented a US-based manufacturing company in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman.{{ FIELD }}Advised a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider in relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading international equipment supplier for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Korean contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major Indian oil and gas company in ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. engineering and construction firm in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international contractor in an ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station.{{ FIELD }}Represented a civil infrastructure contractor in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway.{{ FIELD }}Represented an East Asian company in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. satellite telecommunications firm in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.{{ FIELD }}Andrea Stauber is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s International Disputes practice group, based in London. Andrea focuses on resolving complex international commercial disputes, particularly relating to high-value engineering and construction projects in the energy, infrastructure and mining sectors in jurisdictions around the world.\nShe advises both owners and contractors on a variety of major projects, including power plants, oil and gas processing facilities and pipelines, waste-to-energy plants, airports, roads and elevated highways, chemical plants, as well as wind and solar renewable energy projects.\nAndrea is a Solicitor Advocate and represents clients in arbitral proceedings under all major institutional rules including ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA, UNCITRAL and ICSID. She is also experienced in litigation, adjudication, mediation and expert determination.\nIn addition to her disputes practice, Andrea provides strategic risk management and pragmatic dispute avoidance advice throughout the execution phase of projects, with a view to achieving commercial solutions in line with her clients’ business needs. Where a dispute is unavoidable, Andrea works seamlessly with her clients’ project and legal teams to put them in the best possible position for any subsequent proceeding.\nAndrea had the opportunity to complete a secondment with a multi-national joint venture comprising two leading engineering and construction companies, during which she provided ongoing practical and strategic advice to project teams and management about contract administration, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution in relation to the construction of a combined-cycle power plant within a LNG facility.\nAndrea is ranked as an 'Up and Coming' Partner by Chambers UK in Construction: International Arbitration 2025. She is recommended by Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer for International Arbitration and Construction - Contentious, and was recognised as a Rising Star on their International Arbitration Powerlist in 2019. She is noted as a \"Future Leader\" in Arbitration by Who's Who Legal. Her clients describe her as \"remarkable\" and \"a pleasure to work with\", and note that she \"quickly understands and orchestrates her client's case to perfection\".Andrea is an elected member of Council for the Society of Construction Law UK, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). She is also on the faculty of the Brunel University International Arbitration Summer School and the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Program, where she teaches oral and written advocacy. Partner Up and Coming Partner - Construction: International Arbitration Chambers UK 2025 (2025-2026) International Arbitration - Future Leaders (Partners) Who's Who Legal (2024-2026) Recommended for Construction (Contentious)  Legal 500 UK (2022-2026) Rising Star Legal500 International Arbitration Powerlist 2019 (UK) England and Wales High Court of Australia Law Society of England and Wales Society of Construction Law (Council Member; Secretary) Law Institute of Victoria Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators WPC Energy (UK Committee) Fellow of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Representing an international EPC contractor in an arbitration against a public authority relating to the construction of a Waste-to-Energy plant. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by English law. Representing an international EPC contractor in an ICC arbitration against an oil and gas company (part-State owned) concerning delays in the construction of a gas processing plant in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Paris and governed by Algerian law. Representing a major oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration relating to disputed delay, disruption and variation claims arising from the construction of a gas processing plant and pipeline in Northern Africa. The arbitration is seated in Vienna and governed by English law. Representing an Indian airline in a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and governed by English law. Advised a major oil and gas service provider with respect to claims involving termination of a contract on grounds of force majeure arising from COVID-19 on a project in the Middle East. Represented for a major chemical company in relation to disputed delay, variation and defect claims and entitlement to liquidated damages arising from the construction of a process plant. The amount in dispute was over USD 300 million and the contract was governed by the laws of England and Wales. Represented a developer of renewable energy projects in an LCIA arbitration relating to the construction of a solar photovoltaic power plant in Mongolia. The arbitration is seated in London and governed by Mongolian law. Represented an international contractor in an ICSID arbitration against the State of Kuwait concerning the construction of a major infrastructure project in Kuwait. Advised international contractor in relation to a force majeure claim under an EPC contract for the development of a power plant in Ghana. Represented a US-based manufacturing company in a dispute concerning commissions due on the sale of products and related services in Oman. Advised a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment and services provider in relation to the termination of a subcontract with a drilling services provider on a project in Kuwait. Represented a major oil \u0026amp; gas equipment provider with respect to a dispute involving the sale of drilling technology. Represented a leading international equipment supplier for the power, oil and gas industry in a series of AAA arbitrations seated in New York regarding a small-sale LNG plant project in Nigeria. Represented a Korean contractor in an UNCITRAL arbitration arising out of disputes concerning the construction of a mine in Western Australia. The arbitration is seated in Singapore and the governing law is the law of Western Australia. The amount in dispute was over AUD 2.5 billion. Represented a major Indian oil and gas company in ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration in New Delhi against the Government of India in relation to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC. Represented a U.S. engineering and construction firm in a LCIA arbitration seated in London with regard to force majeure and delay claims arising from the construction of an oil processing plant in the Middle East. Represented an international contractor in an ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules involving claims for delay and disruption, variations and cost overruns arising from the construction of a gas-fired power station. Represented a civil infrastructure contractor in contractual dispute resolution procedures and a subsequent arbitration against a government authority relating to the construction of a highway. Represented an East Asian company in a SIAC arbitration in relation to a dispute about taxation obligations in India under a consortium agreement. Represented a U.S. satellite telecommunications firm in an ICC arbitration against a Philippine telecommunications company concerning satellite communications products and services for merchant ships.","searchable_name":"Andrea Stauber","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446161,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3412,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kenneth-steinthal","email":"ksteinthal@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 825 7293","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steinthal","nick_name":"Kenneth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4405},{"id":4405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Steinthal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IP Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading IP Attorneys: California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"multiple years through 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Northern California Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Lawdragon 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hollywood Reporter\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AAI, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.{{ FIELD }}In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.{{ FIELD }}Kenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by National Law Journal as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by Law360 as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by Legal 500 as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of Legal 500, Chambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star) and the Daily Journal’s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. \nKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken’s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\nIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice’s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions. Partner “He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.” CHAMBERS USA 2022 IP Trailblazers National Law Journal, 2016 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs Law360, 2015 Top 10 Copyright Lawyers The Daily Journal Leading IP Attorneys: California The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021) Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022) Legal 500 USA  multiple years through 2022 Northern California Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021) 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel  Hollywood Reporter Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist  AAI, 2014 Williams College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California New York Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing. In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate. Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial. Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis. Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.","searchable_name":"Kenneth L. Steinthal","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442970,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2379,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mike-stenglein","email":"mstenglein@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 512 423 3092","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":234}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":22,"guid":"22.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stenglein","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mike","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2197,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-stenglein-07796871/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":48,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10610}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-17T19:58:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T19:58:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Stenglein{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.{{ FIELD }}Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.{{ FIELD }}Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.{{ FIELD }}Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.{{ FIELD }}Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.{{ FIELD }}Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.{{ FIELD }}Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.{{ FIELD }}Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology.{{ FIELD }}David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.{{ FIELD }}Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.{{ FIELD }}In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization.{{ FIELD }}Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.{{ FIELD }}Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.{{ FIELD }}Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.{{ FIELD }}Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.{{ FIELD }}Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.{{ FIELD }}U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.{{ FIELD }}Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.{{ FIELD }}Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.{{ FIELD }}E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.{{ FIELD }}Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.{{ FIELD }}AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.{{ FIELD }}Mike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.  He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm’s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes practice, chair of the firm’s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm’s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm’s ten-person Policy Committee.\nWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as “an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work” and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.”  Under Mike’s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\nMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refinería de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.  After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.  Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.  In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\nMike’s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.  For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit – a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes. He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\nWith respect to business disputes, Mike’s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.  These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).  Mike’s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.  Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\nPrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP. Mike Stenglein Partner King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, 2024 Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, 2023 Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs Law 360, 2023 King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide Legal 500, 2023 Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2023 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, 2023 Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation Legal 500, 2022 Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2022 Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, 2021 Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2021 University of Florida Levin College of Law University of Houston University of Houston Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida New York Texas Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America. Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays. Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America. Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa. Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada. Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss. Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast. Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC. Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long). Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts. Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq. Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas. Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials. Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania. Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption. Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue. Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee. Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand. Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany. Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA. Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals. Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States. Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology. David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock. Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court. In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization. Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest. Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida. Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle. Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York. King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware. Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper. Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement. Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq. U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety. Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant. Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store. Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute. Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology. E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing. Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims. AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.","searchable_name":"Mike Stenglein","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446142,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAaron Stephens is an English and US qualified (California - inactive) partner in the Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, twice named by Law360 as \u0026ldquo;White Collar Practice Group of the Year.\u0026rdquo; He specializes in representing financial institutions, corporate clients and senior individuals in highly sensitive litigation and investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAaron has advised clients on diverse matters across Europe, North America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa in the banking/financial services, energy, defence, construction \u0026amp; engineering and retail industries. He has a particular focus on anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, market abuse and fraud, and with commentators saying that \"Aaron Stephens is hugely likeable, very focused and always available\" (Legal 500 2024), that \"he has a strong financial services practice and brings infectious enthusiasm to every case\" (Legal 500 2024), that\u0026nbsp;\"he understands complex matters and finds practical solutions ... he is brilliant, a responsive and reassuring person to have on your side\" (Chambers UK 2020), and that he is \"very easy to communicate with and finds solutions to complex problems\" (Chambers UK 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAaron has carried out regulatory and white collar investigations and/or defended clients in relation to the UK\u0026rsquo;s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Serious Fraud Office (SFO), National Crime Agency (NCA), Takeover Panel and Lloyd\u0026rsquo;s of London, as well as in matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).\u0026nbsp; He also engages in civil litigation in the English courts, and advises a wide range of corporate clients on risk management and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAaron is a Top Ranked Lawyer\u0026nbsp;in Chambers UK 2022\u0026nbsp;in Financial Crime: Corporates and recognized in Legal 500 2021\u0026nbsp;for his work on corporate and financial services investigations (\"the epitome of a trusted adviser\").\u0026nbsp; Chambers UK notes that sources observe that \"he is an incredible professional,\" adding that \"he's a very steady hand and very comforting to clients; he's unflappable.\"\u0026nbsp; In addition, Global Investigations Review has described him as an \u0026ldquo;excellent lawyer who is credited by sources for his work developing [his] practice into a formidable offering.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Aaron was the Head of Corporate Crime and Investigations at the London headquarters of an international law firm.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"aaron-stephens","email":"astephens@kslaw.com","phone":"","matters":["\u003cp\u003ePart of cross-office team advising a global financial institution in U.S. federal antitrust and English High Court litigation alleging that foreign currency dealers conspired to manipulate the benchmark WM/Reuters currency exchange rate and FX spreads.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a global business in the context of an ongoing investigation by the World Bank.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global financial institution in connection with English litigation seeking damages and tracing remedies arising from the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising various senior individuals in the context of on-going Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and cross-border (DOJ, SEC) investigations into alleged bribery \u0026amp; corruption, market manipulation and \"spoofing\", and other financial crime.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCarrying out an internal investigation for a global commodities house into allegations of fraud and corruption in an African jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an energy sector client in relation to an internal investigation into fraudulent and misleading practices affecting an Asian project, including with regard to self reporting obligations and remediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducting an urgent internal investigation for a global asset management firm and advising on remedial steps and notification issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisting a major, global corporation to design and implement a new compliance department, including the drafting of all compliance policies and procedures and related staff training.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended various individuals in the context of the US and UK investigations into manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the foreign exchange (FX) market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMS Amlin\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the context of an investigation by Lloyd\u0026rsquo;s of London, achieving a successful outcome.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSir Paul Judge\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the context of both the on-going SFO investigation into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, and related civil litigation in the High Court of England \u0026amp; Wales.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising numerous corporates and financial services firms regarding compliance with the FCPA, Bribery Act 2010, anti-money laundering legislation and related financial crime compliance issues, including carrying out internal investigations in this regard.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1197,"guid":"1197.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":803,"guid":"803.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stephens","nick_name":"Aaron","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Aaron","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked in Financial Crime: Corporates ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2017-2024"},{"title":"Recognized for his work on corporate and financial services investigations","detail":"Legal 500 2018-2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Global Investigations Review","detail":"GIR"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephensaaron/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAaron Stephens is an English and US qualified (California - inactive) partner in the Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, twice named by Law360 as \u0026ldquo;White Collar Practice Group of the Year.\u0026rdquo; He specializes in representing financial institutions, corporate clients and senior individuals in highly sensitive litigation and investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAaron has advised clients on diverse matters across Europe, North America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa in the banking/financial services, energy, defence, construction \u0026amp; engineering and retail industries. He has a particular focus on anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, market abuse and fraud, and with commentators saying that \"Aaron Stephens is hugely likeable, very focused and always available\" (Legal 500 2024), that \"he has a strong financial services practice and brings infectious enthusiasm to every case\" (Legal 500 2024), that\u0026nbsp;\"he understands complex matters and finds practical solutions ... he is brilliant, a responsive and reassuring person to have on your side\" (Chambers UK 2020), and that he is \"very easy to communicate with and finds solutions to complex problems\" (Chambers UK 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAaron has carried out regulatory and white collar investigations and/or defended clients in relation to the UK\u0026rsquo;s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Serious Fraud Office (SFO), National Crime Agency (NCA), Takeover Panel and Lloyd\u0026rsquo;s of London, as well as in matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).\u0026nbsp; He also engages in civil litigation in the English courts, and advises a wide range of corporate clients on risk management and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAaron is a Top Ranked Lawyer\u0026nbsp;in Chambers UK 2022\u0026nbsp;in Financial Crime: Corporates and recognized in Legal 500 2021\u0026nbsp;for his work on corporate and financial services investigations (\"the epitome of a trusted adviser\").\u0026nbsp; Chambers UK notes that sources observe that \"he is an incredible professional,\" adding that \"he's a very steady hand and very comforting to clients; he's unflappable.\"\u0026nbsp; In addition, Global Investigations Review has described him as an \u0026ldquo;excellent lawyer who is credited by sources for his work developing [his] practice into a formidable offering.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Aaron was the Head of Corporate Crime and Investigations at the London headquarters of an international law firm.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003ePart of cross-office team advising a global financial institution in U.S. federal antitrust and English High Court litigation alleging that foreign currency dealers conspired to manipulate the benchmark WM/Reuters currency exchange rate and FX spreads.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a global business in the context of an ongoing investigation by the World Bank.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global financial institution in connection with English litigation seeking damages and tracing remedies arising from the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising various senior individuals in the context of on-going Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and cross-border (DOJ, SEC) investigations into alleged bribery \u0026amp; corruption, market manipulation and \"spoofing\", and other financial crime.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCarrying out an internal investigation for a global commodities house into allegations of fraud and corruption in an African jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an energy sector client in relation to an internal investigation into fraudulent and misleading practices affecting an Asian project, including with regard to self reporting obligations and remediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducting an urgent internal investigation for a global asset management firm and advising on remedial steps and notification issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisting a major, global corporation to design and implement a new compliance department, including the drafting of all compliance policies and procedures and related staff training.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended various individuals in the context of the US and UK investigations into manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the foreign exchange (FX) market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMS Amlin\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the context of an investigation by Lloyd\u0026rsquo;s of London, achieving a successful outcome.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSir Paul Judge\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the context of both the on-going SFO investigation into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, and related civil litigation in the High Court of England \u0026amp; Wales.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising numerous corporates and financial services firms regarding compliance with the FCPA, Bribery Act 2010, anti-money laundering legislation and related financial crime compliance issues, including carrying out internal investigations in this regard.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked in Financial Crime: Corporates ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2017-2024"},{"title":"Recognized for his work on corporate and financial services investigations","detail":"Legal 500 2018-2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Global Investigations Review","detail":"GIR"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5671}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-24T22:16:29.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-24T22:16:29.000Z","searchable_text":"Stephens{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Financial Crime: Corporates \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2017-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for his work on corporate and financial services investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 2018-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Global Investigations Review\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"GIR\"}{{ FIELD }}Part of cross-office team advising a global financial institution in U.S. federal antitrust and English High Court litigation alleging that foreign currency dealers conspired to manipulate the benchmark WM/Reuters currency exchange rate and FX spreads.{{ FIELD }}Advising a global business in the context of an ongoing investigation by the World Bank.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global financial institution in connection with English litigation seeking damages and tracing remedies arising from the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.{{ FIELD }}Advising various senior individuals in the context of on-going Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and cross-border (DOJ, SEC) investigations into alleged bribery \u0026amp; corruption, market manipulation and \"spoofing\", and other financial crime.{{ FIELD }}Carrying out an internal investigation for a global commodities house into allegations of fraud and corruption in an African jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}Advising an energy sector client in relation to an internal investigation into fraudulent and misleading practices affecting an Asian project, including with regard to self reporting obligations and remediation.{{ FIELD }}Conducting an urgent internal investigation for a global asset management firm and advising on remedial steps and notification issues.{{ FIELD }}Assisting a major, global corporation to design and implement a new compliance department, including the drafting of all compliance policies and procedures and related staff training.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended various individuals in the context of the US and UK investigations into manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the foreign exchange (FX) market.{{ FIELD }}Advised MS Amlin in the context of an investigation by Lloyd’s of London, achieving a successful outcome.{{ FIELD }}Represented Sir Paul Judge in the context of both the on-going SFO investigation into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, and related civil litigation in the High Court of England \u0026amp; Wales.{{ FIELD }}Advising numerous corporates and financial services firms regarding compliance with the FCPA, Bribery Act 2010, anti-money laundering legislation and related financial crime compliance issues, including carrying out internal investigations in this regard.{{ FIELD }}Aaron Stephens is an English and US qualified (California - inactive) partner in the Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, twice named by Law360 as “White Collar Practice Group of the Year.” He specializes in representing financial institutions, corporate clients and senior individuals in highly sensitive litigation and investigations.\nAaron has advised clients on diverse matters across Europe, North America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa in the banking/financial services, energy, defence, construction \u0026amp; engineering and retail industries. He has a particular focus on anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, market abuse and fraud, and with commentators saying that \"Aaron Stephens is hugely likeable, very focused and always available\" (Legal 500 2024), that \"he has a strong financial services practice and brings infectious enthusiasm to every case\" (Legal 500 2024), that \"he understands complex matters and finds practical solutions ... he is brilliant, a responsive and reassuring person to have on your side\" (Chambers UK 2020), and that he is \"very easy to communicate with and finds solutions to complex problems\" (Chambers UK 2022).  \nAaron has carried out regulatory and white collar investigations and/or defended clients in relation to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Serious Fraud Office (SFO), National Crime Agency (NCA), Takeover Panel and Lloyd’s of London, as well as in matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  He also engages in civil litigation in the English courts, and advises a wide range of corporate clients on risk management and compliance issues.\nAaron is a Top Ranked Lawyer in Chambers UK 2022 in Financial Crime: Corporates and recognized in Legal 500 2021 for his work on corporate and financial services investigations (\"the epitome of a trusted adviser\").  Chambers UK notes that sources observe that \"he is an incredible professional,\" adding that \"he's a very steady hand and very comforting to clients; he's unflappable.\"  In addition, Global Investigations Review has described him as an “excellent lawyer who is credited by sources for his work developing [his] practice into a formidable offering.”\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Aaron was the Head of Corporate Crime and Investigations at the London headquarters of an international law firm. Partner Ranked in Financial Crime: Corporates  Chambers UK, 2017-2024 Recognized for his work on corporate and financial services investigations Legal 500 2018-2024 Recognized by Global Investigations Review GIR Indiana University Indiana University School of Law Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law California England and Wales American Bar Association Member of the Financial Services Consultation Board for Practical Law/Thomson Reuters Vice Chair of the Business Crime Committee of the International Bar Association Member of the Council of JUSTICE Law Society of England \u0026amp; Wales (Admitted 5/15/2003; Reg. # 382567) Part of cross-office team advising a global financial institution in U.S. federal antitrust and English High Court litigation alleging that foreign currency dealers conspired to manipulate the benchmark WM/Reuters currency exchange rate and FX spreads. Advising a global business in the context of an ongoing investigation by the World Bank. Representing a global financial institution in connection with English litigation seeking damages and tracing remedies arising from the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal. Advising various senior individuals in the context of on-going Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and cross-border (DOJ, SEC) investigations into alleged bribery \u0026amp; corruption, market manipulation and \"spoofing\", and other financial crime. Carrying out an internal investigation for a global commodities house into allegations of fraud and corruption in an African jurisdiction. Advising an energy sector client in relation to an internal investigation into fraudulent and misleading practices affecting an Asian project, including with regard to self reporting obligations and remediation. Conducting an urgent internal investigation for a global asset management firm and advising on remedial steps and notification issues. Assisting a major, global corporation to design and implement a new compliance department, including the drafting of all compliance policies and procedures and related staff training. Successfully defended various individuals in the context of the US and UK investigations into manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the foreign exchange (FX) market. Advised MS Amlin in the context of an investigation by Lloyd’s of London, achieving a successful outcome. Represented Sir Paul Judge in the context of both the on-going SFO investigation into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, and related civil litigation in the High Court of England \u0026amp; Wales. Advising numerous corporates and financial services firms regarding compliance with the FCPA, Bribery Act 2010, anti-money laundering legislation and related financial crime compliance issues, including carrying out internal investigations in this regard.","searchable_name":"Aaron Stephens","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}