News 24 Jun. 2021
Curtis successfully defends foreign states' procedural privileges in the UK Supreme Court
News 23 Jun. 2021
Ibrahim Elsadig joins Curtis as Partner in Dubai
Client Alert 24 Feb. 2022
EU, UK, Japan and Australia Impose Sanctions on Russia
News 09 Aug. 2021
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle enters into association with Chevalier Law in Singapore.
News 06 May. 2022
Curtis Advises Terna Group on the Sale of its Latin America Power Transmission Assets to CDPQ
Publications 05 May. 2022
Marie-Claire Argac, Simon Batifort, and Cyprien Mathié share highlights from “Affaires d’Etats: Practical Considerations When Defending States in International Arbitration” on Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Event 26 Apr. 2022
Claudia Frutos-Peterson Speaks at CAI Costa Rica’s 13th Congress of International Arbitration
News 21 Apr. 2022
SCOTUS Upholds U.S. Colonialism under the U.S. Constitution
Client Alert 23 Mar. 2022
The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has launched the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022
Event 22 Nov. 2021
Partner Antonia Birt spoke at ADGMAC and AIAC Webinar Series: Webinar 5 - Disputes in Fintech and Complex Technology in MESEA
News 10 May. 2022
Juan Perla’s Argument in D.C. Circuit Featured on Audio Arguendo Podcast
Client Alert 21 Apr. 2022
New Laws Targeting Assets of Russian Oligarchs: The U.S. Announces Task Force KleptoCapture and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Program
Client Alert 19 Apr. 2022
U.S. President Biden Expands Export Controls Imposed on Russia and Belarus
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
News 29 Mar. 2019
A federal district court in Colorado has issued a judgment in favor of Curtis' client Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. (“CIMSA”) in an action to confirm a US$36 million arbitral award against Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V. and GCC Latinoamérica, S.A. de C.V. (jointly, “GCC”). On March 25, the district court ruled favorably on the merits of the case, granting CIMSA approximately US$45 million, which constitutes US$36million rendered in its favor in 2015 by an arbitral panel seated in La Paz, Bolivia, plus interest and costs.
“We were very pleased with the Court’s decision and look forward to recovering the full damages that were granted by the tribunal,” said Eliot Lauer, co-chair of Curtis’ litigation department, commenting on this comprehensive victory. Curtis’ success in this case, which involves a Bolivian client, a Mexican debtor and a U.S. court, exemplifies the international firm’s ability to handle complex litigations involving multiple jurisdictions and the capabilities of the firm’s market-leading disputes practice.
Curtis represented CIMSA in the underlying arbitration in La Paz, Bolivia.
An Arbitral Tribunal Found That GCC Breached the Parties’ Joint Venture Agreement
The dispute arises out of a 2005 joint venture agreement governing GCC and CIMSA’s commercial relationship as the two majority shareholders of SOBOCE, Bolivia’s largest cement company. That agreement afforded CIMSA the right to purchase GCC’s shares in SOBOCE before any third party buyer. However, in 2011, GCC unexpectedly sold its shares to one of CIMSA’s competitors.
CIMSA initiated arbitration pursuant to the parties’ agreement. In 2013, following two years of arbitral proceedings, a tribunal seated in La Paz, Bolivia issued a merits award in which it found that GCC had breached the joint venture agreement by selling its shares to CIMSA’s competitor. Two years later, the arbitral tribunal issued a damages award in which it awarded CIMSA over $36 million in damages and legal fees.
CIMSA promptly brought a claim to enforce the award in a federal court in Colorado, where GCC’s U.S. subsidiary (“GCC America”) operates a large cement manufacturing business that generates a substantial portion of GCC’s profits. In October 2015, the Colorado court issued one order attaching GCC’s assets located in Colorado up to the amount of the award, and another order requiring GCC America to identify any such assets in its possession.
GCC Initiated Litigation in Bolivia in an Attempt to Set Aside the Arbitral Awards
However, GCC initiated a series of challenges in the Bolivian courts in an attempt to set aside the awards. In light of these challenges, CIMSA agreed to temporarily suspend GCC America’s obligation to identify GCC’s assets in Colorado. After two years the challenges were resolved in CIMSA’s favor.
CIMSA Prevails on Its Motion to Confirm
On May 31, 2018, CIMSA, through a Curtis team by Eliot Lauer, Gabriel Hertzberg, and Sylvi Sareva, filed motions in Colorado, including to reinstate GCC’s USA’s obligation to identify GCC’s Colorado assets; and a motion to confirm the arbitral award in its favor.
CIMSA’s motion sought to confirm the award pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Convention significantly limits defenses to confirmation, in order to encourage the enforcement of arbitration agreements in international contracts. The court agreed with CIMSA that GCC could not establish a defense to confirmation under the Convention. Importantly, the U.S. district court rejected a decision of a Bolivian court (the “Ninth Court”) purporting to set aside the arbitral award against GCC, finding as a matter of Bolivian law that the Ninth Court’s decision was ineffective, and was “suspect” in the manner in which it was rendered. Likewise, the U.S. district court refused to recognize the validity of a “decree” by the then-sitting President of the highest constitutional court in Bolivia—the Plurinational Constitutional Court—which also purported to invalidate the arbitral award. The decision represents a diligent examination by the district court of the workings of the Bolivian constitutional court system in order to reach a conclusion regarding the legal status of the arbitral award under Bolivian law.
Commercial Disputes - Litigation