Charles Claypoole

Charles has advised on numerous high-profile and significant disputes, and is one of the leading lawyers worldwide with expertise in international law, trade sanctions, and international arbitration.

Recent mandates including advising:

• UniCredit Bank GmbH in securing from the UK Supreme Court a mandatory anti-suit injunction requiring a Gazprom joint venture to discontinue proceedings before the Russian courts seeking recovery of €448 million under a series of English law-governed bonds that provided for ICC arbitration in Paris. This landmark decision was the first reported instance of the English courts issuing an anti-suit injunction in support of a foreign arbitration agreement (UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC, Case ID: 2024/0015)
• A European industrial company in several separate VIAC arbitrations against a Russian entity on issues related to compliance with EU sanctions
• A European company in an ICC arbitration against a Swiss company related to compliance with EU sanctions, including the scope of Article 10 of Regulation 269/2014

Charles has also acted as lead counsel in many significant arbitrations, including for:

• Strabag, a major Austrian construction company, in securing a €100 million arbitral award (including the majority of its legal costs) in an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration against Libya brought under the Libya – Austria BIT (Strabag SE v. Libya), and in defeating Libya's attempts to challenge the award in Washington, D.C.
• The Republic of Kazakhstan in a resubmitted arbitration related to a mining concession (Alhambra Cooperatief U.A. v Kazakhstan)
• Ipek Investment in an ICSID arbitration related to the expropriation of a major mining group in Turkey (Ipek Investment Limited v. Turkey)
• The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in securing a successful settlement of an arbitration brought under the German – Saudi Arabia BIT (HOCHTIEF Infrastructure GmbH v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
• The Republic of Croatia in:
  • An ICSID arbitration brought under the Netherlands – Croatia BIT related to a proposed real estate and tourism development in Croatia, which was successfully defeated with all of the claimants’ claims being dismissed (Elitech v. Croatia)
  • A pending ICSID arbitration brought under the Israel – Croatia BIT related to a proposed real estate and tourism development in Croatia (Frenkel v. Croatia)
  • An ICSID claim brought under the Belgium – Croatia BIT related to a real estate and tourism development, which was successfully defeated (van Riet v. Republic of Croatia)
• The State of Ukraine in:
  • An SCC arbitration in which the claimants claimed more than US$6 billion for alleged breaches of the ECT (Littop Enterprises Limited and others v. Ukraine); the tribunal unanimously dismissed the case, which was the largest ever brought against Ukraine, for lack of jurisdiction
  • A pending ICSID arbitration brought under the Dutch – Ukraine BIT related to an alleged investment in the aviation sector (Gilward Investments BV v. Ukraine)
  • An ICSID claim brought under the German – Ukraine BIT related to a petrochemicals project; the tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims in their entirety, and awarded Ukraine 100% of its legal costs (GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine)
  • An UNCITRAL arbitration, which successfully settled, brought under the Greek – Ukraine BIT related to an investment in the ship-building industry (Laskaridis and others v. Ukraine)
  • A case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) before the International Court of Justice
• ArcelorMittal in obtaining a successful settlement of an ICSID arbitration against Egypt under the Belgium – Egypt BIT related to an investment in the steel industry (ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Egypt)
• The Indorama Group in obtaining a significant cash settlement of an ICSID arbitration against Egypt under the UK – Egypt BIT related to an investment in the steel industry (Indorama International Finance Limited v. Egypt)
• The Republic of North Macedonia in:
  • An ICSID claim, which was defeated, brought under the Dutch – Macedonia BIT related to an alleged investment in the finance sector; the tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, and awarded Ukraine 100% of its legal costs (Guardian Fiduciary Trust, Ltd, f/k/a Capital Conservator Savings & Loan, Ltd v. Republic of Macedonia)
  • An ICSID arbitration, obtaining a successful result, brought under the Swiss – Macedonia BIT related to an investment in an agricultural company; the tribunal rejected the claimant’s main claims and the vast majority of its damages claim (Swisslion DOO Skopje v. Republic of Macedonia)
• The Government of Azerbaijan in an ICSID arbitration brought under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to the management of an electricity network (Barmek Holding A.S. v. Azerbaijan)
• The Government of Pakistan in the jurisdictional phase of an ICSID arbitration brought under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to a construction project (Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Pakistan)
• The Government of Yemen in an ICSID arbitration brought under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to a construction project (Desert Line Projects LLC v. Yemen)
• Barbados on its claim to Outer Continental Shelf submitted to the UN CLCS
• Indonesia in a case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) before the International Court of Justice

Charles is a highly sought-after trade sanctions specialist, having advised on some of the most complex and challenging sanctions matters in recent years, including advising Intesa Sanpaolo on providing a €5.2 billion loan to finance the acquisition of a 19.5% stake in Rosneft, advising Lord Barker, the chairman of En+ Group plc, on its successful removal from the SDN list, and in securing various OFSI and other sanctions licenses, including the authorization of TP Global to acquire the assets of the Truphone business.