"Charles Claypoole is described as 'one of the leading experts on investment treaty arbitrations in the London market.' He is commended by clients for his 'professionalism, dedication and calmness of mind'." Chambers UK 2020

Charles Claypoole

London
  • 99 Bishopsgate
  • London EC2M 3XF
  • United Kingdom
 
 

Charles Claypoole, a leading arbitration practitioner, advises governments and investors on public international law, with a particular focus on investment treaty arbitration. A seasoned advocate with an impressive track record, he draws on more than two decades of experience representing clients before a range of international courts and tribunals.

Mr. Claypoole advises clients on a full spectrum of public international law, international trade, and dispute resolution issues. He regularly helps clients navigate disputes related to:

  • Investment treaty arbitrations under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties including the Energy Charter Treaty
  • International commercial arbitration
  • Free trade agreements
  • State immunity issues
  • International humanitarian and human rights law
  • International law on territorial and maritime boundaries, including the Law of the Sea
  • International trade sanctions and export control laws

An experienced advocate, Mr. Claypoole has successfully represented clients before the International Court of Justice, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, ICSID, ICC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL arbitral tribunals.

Leading legal publications, including Chambers UK and The Legal 500 have for several years consistently recognized Mr. Claypoole for his public international law and international arbitration work. Clients note his “impressive intellect” and “calmness of mind”.

Mr. Claypoole regularly publishes and speaks about international law, arbitration, as well as trade and finance sanctions. He has lectured on international boundary law at King’s College London since 2003.

Mr. Claypoole has acted as lead counsel in many significant disputes, 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)
  • Ipek Investment in a pending 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 Infrastrucuture GmbH vs. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
  • The Republic of Croatia in:
    > A pending ICSID arbitration related to a proposed real estate and tourism development in Croatia (Elitech v. Croatia)
    > An ICSID claim brought under the Belgium – Croatia BIT relating to a real estate and tourism development, which was successfully defeated (van Riet v. Republic of Croatia)
  • The State of Ukraine in:
    > A pending SCC arbitration conducted in which the claimants are claiming more than US$6 billion for alleged breaches of the ECT
    > 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
 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.