Our Practice

International Arbitration

...Chaffetz Lindsey LLP "has succeeded where many others have failed: in the creation of a specialized, top-notch international arbitration boutique."
- Legal 500 USA
The team’s ‘“highly specialized’” platform is a key advantage...“they are very familiar with court and arbitral proceedings and all their peculiarities."
- Chambers USA
The level of their commitment is amazing - they work as if yours is the only case they have.
- Chambers Latin America
They are a great team - very efficient, with great knowledge of international arbitration.
- Chambers USA
Where Advocacy Meets Business

We are the leading US-based international arbitration boutique. Our lawyers practice in the world’s major arbitration forums and before the most distinguished arbitrators.

We are highly ranked by publications including Chambers Global, Latin America & USA, Legal 500, Global Arbitration Review, and Who’s Who LegalGlobal Arbitration Review recognized us as a top arbitration boutique, and Law360 named us one of the “Top 4 International Arbitration Boutiques” in the world.

Our team members are thought leaders actively involved in the arbitration bar, in arbitration institutions, and in academia.  We regularly write on topics of importance to the arbitration community and speak at arbitration conferences worldwide. Several of our lawyers also sit as arbitrators.

Chaffetz Lindsey was among the founders of the New York International Arbitration Center (“NYIAC”), a non-profit organization established to advance the conduct of international arbitration in New York.  Aníbal Sabater sits on NYIAC’s Executive Committee.



We represent or have represented:

  • German parent and its US subsidiary in an ICDR arbitration against a Canadian infrastructure company concerning supply of turbines to a major wind farm project in Texas.  (New York law; New York seat).
  • Subsidiary of a European energy company in an ICC arbitration over termination of a Spanish contractor for a BOT hydro dam project in Central America, also involving litigation over security. (New York law; Miami seat).
  • Brazilian company in a tripartite LCIA-administered arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules arising out of a joint operating agreement. (Brazilian law; Paris seat).
  • Multinational owners of a power plant in Central America in a $1.2 billion ICC arbitration against a Chinese contractor concerning termination of an EPC contract and financing agreement. (New York law; Singapore seat).
  • Sovereign in an ICC arbitration against a US investor in a dispute arising out of an attempted investment in an educational facility in the South Pacific (and parallel US litigation).  (Cook Islands law; London seat).
  • French and US companies in an ICC arbitration against Chinese/Hong Kong entities concerning breaches of a distribution agreement. (New York law; New York seat).
  • Bolivian company in an ICDR-administered arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a Canadian developer concerning a mining project in Chile. (Florida law; Miami seat).
  • US energy company in a Singapore-seated SIAC arbitration of post-acquisition claims for breach of warranties/fraud arising from the purchase of a power plant in Pakistan. (English law; Singapore seat).
  • European pharmaceutical company in an NAI arbitration with a major global company concerning a commercialization agreement, obtaining a $200 million+ award. (New York law; The Hague seat).
  • Turkish telecommunications company in a $1 billion ICC arbitration in Geneva and disputes in other jurisdictions over a failed corporate acquisition. (Swiss law; Geneva seat).
  • Brazilian private equity firm in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo involving a $100 million dispute with one of the world’s largest hedge funds. (Brazilian law; Sao Paulo seat).
  • Korean construction sub-contractor in an ICDR arbitration against the US prime contractor arising out of a FIDIC contract for a road project in Afghanistan. (New Jersey and federal law; New Jersey seat).
  • Brazilian firm in an ICC arbitration arising out of the construction of a floating oil and gas production, storage and offloading vessel. (New York and Brazilian Law; New York seat).
  • Chinese/US company in an HKIAC arbitration over claims arising out of the purchase of a website and related IP. (New York law; Hong Kong seat).
  • United Nations in an arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules against a Japanese construction company concerning design issues for a project in Timor-Leste. (International law; Singapore seat).
  • Multinational energy company in an ICDR arbitration concerning allocation of taxes in an LNG project JV, with parallel local litigation. (New York and Trinidad law; New York seat).

We have represented dozens of clients in investment treaty arbitrations, as well as giving advice on cutting edge issues of public international law.  Some recent experience includes representing:

  • Albacora S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (UNCITRAL/PCA): Counsel to claimant alleging Ecuador’s breach of fair and equitable treatment obligations concerning fisheries investments in a tax-free zone.
  • AES v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17: Counsel to claimant in a multi-hundred million dollar ICSID arbitration against Argentina, including novel issues in the power generation sector.
  • Diamond Fields Liberia, Inc. v. Government of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/14: Counsel to Liberia in an ICSID arbitration concerning a gold mining concession.
  • Alcor Holdings Ltd. v. Czech Republic (UNCITRAL/PCA): Counsel to the Czech Republic defending claims brought by a UAE investor concerning real estate.
  • Spanish power generation company v. Central American Republic: Counsel to claimant in a BIT dispute involving failure to increase end user tariffs and unfair and inequitable treatment.
  • US investor in BIT and Energy Charter Treaty claims noticed against Turkey concerning punitive taxes imposed on a power company and related commercial proceedings commenced under a PPA.
  • Spanish and BVI entities in BIT and investment law claims against Venezuela concerning the expropriation of a financial institution.
  • An Asian energy company in claims against a Central American state concerning interference with a power plant project and denial of justice in local courts.
  • An energy company in potential claims against Bulgaria arising out of interference with its investments in the solar/wind power markets.
  • A European company with assets in Africa, concerning territorial boundary disputes and compliance with international and EU law obligations.
  • Latin American SOE in regional investment treaty issues affecting exposure to claims arising from listing on the NYSE.
  • Counsel in two cases before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, securing the first damages award against the US.
  • Counsel in two cases involving submissions under the ECHR against Spain for interference with property rights.


Subscribe to Updates

Stay informed of Chaffetz Lindsey’s updates, new articles, and events invitations by subscribing to our mailing list.