GBS Disputes

Sophie is or was part of the team advising and/or representing:

• The Republic of Colombia, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration brought by Angel Samuel Seda and others (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/6). The dispute arose from allegations of expropriation of a real estate project seized in application of Colombia’s asset forfeiture law, and claims in excess of USD 300 million were brought under the 2012 Colombia-U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA). In a landmark victory for our client, the Tribunal dismissed all claims and found, for the first time in investment arbitration history, that the essential security clause in the TPA invoked by Colombia applied and protected Colombia’s measures designed to fight narcotraffic and money laundering.
• An African company in an ICC arbitration in Paris brought by a European contractor in relation to a gas plant project.
• Latin American investment companies and two individuals, Claimants in an ICC arbitration in Paris against a major European telecommunications company. The dispute related to the breach of a settlement agreement that was previously entered into by the parties in relation to multiple claims brought in several litigation proceedings. Brazilian law applied. Over USD 15 billion was at stake. We also represented the Claimants in proceedings to revise the award rendered in the ICC arbitration before an arbitral tribunal, based on the Claimants’ allegations that the Respondents committed procedural fraud in the course of the arbitration, and we represent the Claimants in annulment proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal.
• A leading European energy company and its Asian subsidiary, Claimants in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against three Asian State-owned nuclear power companies. The arbitration concerned a shareholders’ dispute arising from the unilateral adoption by the Asian companies of corporate measures which would have had the effect of preventing our client from receiving one third of its share of the profits to be generated by the nuclear power plant throughout the assets’ technical life. The law of the Respondents’ State applied. The Tribunal found that the measures adopted by the Respondents were in breach of the shareholders’ agreement, issued relief to protect our clients’ share of future profits, and ordered the Respondents to pay 75% of our clients’ legal fees.
• European franchisees, Respondents in an LCIA arbitration in Paris initiated by a North American quick-service restaurant chain. The dispute arises from an agreement to exclusively develop and operate quick-service restaurants in a European country. Issues include adherence to development obligations, system adequacy, site approval rights, potential contract breaches, and remedies entailing alterations to territory and exclusivity. Over EUR 67 million is at stake.

Education

• New York University, LL.M in International Business Regulation, Litigation and Arbitration
• Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, Master II in International Economic Law
• Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, Master I in International Law
• Université Aix-Marseille III, Bachelor of Law

Admissions & Courts

• Paris
• New York

Languages

• French
• Spanish
• English

Nationality

French

Teaching

Lecturer on civil procedure, Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne University (under the supervision of Professor Thomas Clay), since 2021

• “Epidemics and Investment Law: a Host State’s Perspective,” in Epidemics and International Law, Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations Series (2021), Vol. 22 (S. Murase and S. Zhou eds.)
• “Challenges in Winning and Managing First Appointments,” Kluwer Arbitration Blog (May 2021)
• “Enforcement of ICSID Awards in the United States: Should the ICSID Convention Be Read as Allowing a ‘Second Bite at the Apple’?,” 48 New York University Journal of International Law & Policy 1255 (2016)