Clients describe Claudia Salomon as “very professional and knowledgeable” and “a real leader with stamina, knowledge, expertise and vision."Chambers USA 2016

Claudia T. Salomon

New York
  • 885 Third Avenue
  • New York, NY 10022-4834
  • USA
 
 

Claudia T. Salomon is a partner in the New York office of Latham & Watkins and Global Co-Chair of the firm's International Arbitration Practice. She is recognized as a leading international arbitration lawyer by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Legal 500, Who's Who Legal, Latinvex, and Best Lawyers.

Ms. Salomon has acted as lead counsel in significant international commercial arbitration and investor treaty arbitration cases under all of the major arbitral rules, in venues around the globe, under common law and civil law, with a focus on the energy, construction, and technology sectors. She is particularly adept at post M&A and joint venture disputes.

Ms. Salomon is experienced handling litigation in connection with arbitration, including preliminary measures, attachment, and enforcement proceedings. She also regularly serves as an arbitrator and has experience as sole arbitrator, emergency arbitrator, and on a three-arbitrator tribunal.

Ms. Salomon is the US member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and serves as the Co-Chair of the ICC Taskforce on Financial Institutions and International Arbitration. She is a frequent speaker and writer on international arbitration and is the co-editor of Choice of Venue in International Arbitration, published by Oxford University Press.

Significant International Commercial Arbitration Experience
  • Spanish construction company in an ICC arbitration venued in New York involving a post-M&A purchase price adjustment and indemnification claims
  • US subsidiary of a European construction company in an ICC arbitration venued in San Francisco involving a solar plant
  • European construction company in an ICC arbitration venued in Miami involving an infrastructure project in Latin America
  • Taiwanese company in an ICC arbitration venued in San Francisco arising from a dispute under a joint venture agreement involving complex antitrust and damages issues
  • Asian technology company in an ICC arbitration venued in New York involving a patent cross-licensing agreement
  • US subsidiary of a Brazilian energy company in an ICC arbitration, involving the supply of a rig
  • Concessionaire in an ICC arbitration in London against a Central American country involving the construction of a toll road
  • Investment firm in an ICC arbitration in London against a Caribbean country involving the privatization of the telecommunications industry
  • US entity in an ICC arbitration in Mauritius against an African company involving the sale of commodities (including 1782 proceedings in the US)
  • US franchisor in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian franchisee involving royalty payments
  • US university in an ICC arbitration against a Vietnamese company involving education programs in Vietnam
  • US technology company in a dispute with a European supplier in a dispute under the ICDR rules
  • US airline in an ICDR arbitration against European airlines involving revenue sharing issues under New York law
  • Canadian company in an ICDR arbitration against a US subsidiary of a Russian company involving potash contracts
  • US company in an ICDR arbitration against Colombian and Korean energy companies involving indemnification claims arising out of the sale of a Peruvian subsidiary
  • Japanese electronics company in an AAA/ICDR arbitration in New York against a US company involving an OEM agreement
  • US company in an ICDR arbitration in Seoul involving breach of contract and trademark claims
  • Hong Kong electronics manufacturer against a US company in an international arbitration under the ICDR rules involving breach of contract claims
  • US company in a JAMS arbitration against a European based company involving the termination of a global distribution agreement and consequential termination of a call option
  • European company in a JAMS arbitration arising out of an exclusive distribution and marketing agreement and related interim relief brought in New York courts
  • Indian telecommunications company in an LCIA arbitration venued in Singapore brought by a Japanese company (and related attachment proceedings brought in aid of arbitration)
  • Italian company that invested in a Hong Kong technology company in an LCIA arbitration in London involving breach of contract claims
  • African state in an UNCITRAL arbitration involving the construction of a power barge
  • Czech subsidiary of a US company in an UNCITRAL arbitration in Vienna involving a dispute over the ownership of patents
  • Greek telephone company in three arbitrations before a single tribunal in Zurich under the UNCITRAL Rules involving the privatization of an Eastern European telephone system
Significant Investor – State Arbitration Experience
  • US investors in an ICSID arbitration against Ukraine involving poultry contracts
  • Austrian investor in an ICSID arbitration against Bosnia for US$40 million involving a supply contract
  • Czech Republic in four major investment treaty cases, including cases in the banking, telecom, water, and hospitality sectors
  • Georgia (country in the Caucasus) in two ICSID cases involving more than US$700 million in claims involving the Trans-Caucasus oil and gas pipelines and novel questions of jurisdiction under the Energy Charter Treaty
  • Georgia (country in the Caucasus) in a US$120 million ICSID arbitration brought under the BIT between Italy and Georgia involving the largest steel plant in the former Soviet Union
  • Oman in an ICSID arbitration brought under the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement concerning lease agreements and concessions for mining rights
  • Thailand, opposing the enforcement of an award issued under the German-Thai BIT under the UNCITRAL rules
 
 
 
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.