Carolyn Lamm

Carolyn has served as counsel in significant representations, including: 

• Representing the Russian Federation in litigation before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to resist the enforcement of the +US$50 billion Yukos arbitration awards, the largest awards in the history of arbitration.  Supporting counsel in related proceedings before the courts of the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Germany, and other jurisdictions.
• Representing Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC) and its European partners, Salini-Impreglio, Sacyr, and Jan de Nul, in disputes with the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) regarding the construction of new locks at the Panama Canal. 
• Representing the Republic of Uzbekistan in Oxus Gold v. Republic of Uzbekistan, an UNCITRAL arbitration under the UK – Uzbekistan BIT in a dispute concerning mines that contain gold, silver, and other metals. Successfully defeated more than 99% of the claimant's US$1.3 billion claim. 
• Represented the Republic of Uzbekistan in Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, an ICSID arbitration arising under the Uzbekistan-Israel bilateral investment treaty brought by an Israeli company, concerning a joint venture that was engaged in the processing of molybdenum, a metallic mineral. In a unanimous award, the tribunal refused jurisdiction over Metal-Tech's request for more than US$170 million for alleged treaty violations, finding that Metal-Tech made corrupt payments to obtain its alleged investment in the Uzbek molybdenum industry. The case is the first-ever investment treaty claim before ICSID to be dismissed on corruption grounds. The decision was nominated by Global Arbitration Review for "Most Important Published Decision of 2013 in Jurisprudential Terms". 
• Representing the Republic of Uzbekistan in Vladislav Kim and others v. Republic of Uzbekistan, an ICSID arbitration under the Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan BIT concerning two cement plants.  
• Representing the Republic of Uzbekistan in Güneş Tekstil and others v. Uzbekistan, an ICSID arbitration concerning alleged violations of the Turkey-Uzbekistan BIT in connection with the claimants' investment in the building and operation of shopping facilities in Uzbekistan.  
• Represented the Republic of Uzbekistan in Spentex Netherlands, BV v. Republic of Uzbekistan, an ICSID arbitration of a dispute arising under the Netherlands-Uzbekistan BIT relating to an investment in the textile industry, in which the investor's claims were dismissed in their entirety.
• Representing the Republic of Uzbekistan in Bursel Tekstil and others v. Uzbekistan, an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey-Uzbekistan BIT with respect to the claimants' alleged investment in the cotton textile industry in Uzbekistan.
• Representing the Republic of Uzbekistan in JV Corsan-Corviam and Eleqtrtarmoqqurilish, Corsan-Corviam Construccion S.A. v. Road Fund of the Ministry of Finance and Republic of Uzbekistan, an ICC arbitration involving a road construction project.
• Represented tens of thousands of claimants with investments in Argentina exceeding US$2.4 billion in Abaclat v. Argentina. The case arose under the Argentina-Italy bilateral investment treaty and related to Argentina's default on the payment of bonds following the declaration of a moratorium on payment of its sovereign foreign debt. The Tribunal issued a seminal 'Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,' establishing jurisdiction over the claims in August 2011 – finding that sovereign bonds are protected investments and giving the green light to the first-ever mass claim in investment arbitration history. The decision was named 'Most Influential Award of the Last Decade' at the 2012 OGEMID Awards. The parties reached an historic settlement with Argentina in May 2016, whereby the Government agreed to make a cash payment "equal to 150 per cent of the principal value of the affected bonds" in exchange for a dismissal of the claim. 
• Represented the Republic of Indonesia through the final stages of the first trial, the annulment proceedings and the resubmission proceedings (including the retrial) of Amco Asia et al. v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, which resulted from the revocation of a foreign investment license that permitted an investor to construct and operate a hotel in Jakarta. The case raised numerous issues of first impression and remains to date one of the most heavily cited cases in the investor-State context. First award annulled, second award partially annulled, and damages significantly reduced.
• Represented the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in a treaty-based ICSID arbitration, Fraport v. Philippines, and in an ICC arbitration, PIATCO v. Philippines, as a result of the alleged nullification of a concession contract and expropriation of an international air terminal with claims jointly in excess of US$1 billion. In PIATCO, we achieved a significant victory for the Philippines, with the Tribunal's dismissal of all claims and the Singapore High Court's resolute rejection of the Claimant's petition to set aside the Tribunal's decision. In Fraport, the Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claims in their entirety for lack of jurisdiction. The ICSID Tribunal's award dismissing the case was later annulled, albeit on a narrow procedural ground and without establishing any liability of the Republic. 
• Represented the Philippines in an ICSID claim brought by a Belgian dredging company, Baggerwerken Decloedt en Zoon, relating to the termination of a project to rehabilitate the country's largest lake. White & Case obtained the dismissal of the vast majority of the claims presented.
• Represented PSEG in an ICSID arbitration against the Government of Turkey arising as a result of the Government of Turkey's violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard of the US/Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty. Prevailed to recover all "sunk costs."
• Represented the Government of Bulgaria in an ICSID arbitration, Plama Consortium v. Republic of Bulgaria, under the Energy Charter Treaty and Bilateral Investment Treaties of claims of over US$100 million arising out of the privatization of an oil refinery project. Case dismissed and substantial cost award for Bulgaria.
• Represented Peru in Aguaytia Energy, LLC v. Republic of Peru, an ICSID arbitration of a dispute involving electricity transmission and legal stability agreements in Peru in which the claims of the investor, totaling in excess of US$100 million, were dismissed in their entirety. Case dismissed.

Carolyn also has served as a arbitrator or as member of the arbitral tribunal in the following cases:

• Served as arbitrator in ADF v. United States of America, an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration filed by a Canadian investor under Chapter 11 of NAFTA
• Served as an arbitrator in an ICSID arbitration that was instituted by Ickale Insaat Limited Sirketi, a Turkish company, against Turkmenistan relating to an alleged investment in the design and construction of various facilities in Turkmenistan. Içkale Insaat Limited Sirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Arbitration Case No. ARB 10/24) 
• Served as an arbitrator in a SIAC arbitration regarding a cancellation by a state of a contract for a gambling resort.