Sarah Vasani

• Representing an American technology company offering energy and water resource management services against a UAE ICT infrastructure and services integration company in a consolidated DIFC-LCIA arbitration relating to an alleged breach of a Teaming Agreement.  The dispute involves the provision of goods and services to an electricity and water authority in the MENA region.  The arbitration is governed by English law and seated in the DIFC. 
• Acting for a major US-based energy services company against a Pakistani company in four DIFC-LCIA arbitrations arising out of five contracts and relating to the provision of goods and services for three gas processing facilities in Karachi, Pakistan. The arbitration is governed by English law and seated in Dubai. 
• Representing the largest private Indian construction company in parallel ICC proceedings brought by an African state and its ministry of transportation in relation to a USD 3 billion port and rail project. The ICC proceeding is governed by Mozambican law and seated in Maputo. 
• Advising a West African Communications and Technology Company in a dispute with a West African Central Bank in a high value LCIA arbitration concerning a technology project. The arbitration governed by Ghanaian law and seated London.
• Advising the Ministry of Energy of a West African State in relation to an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London concerning a dispute under a Build, Operate, Own and Transfer Agreement concerning a 300MW power station. 
• Advising a Ghanaian oil and gas company in an UNCITRAL arbitration governed by Ghanaian law and seated London, against multinational lending institutions, in relation to the failure of the institutions to disburse loans related to a petroleum storage facility. The representation included defending an anti-suit injunction obtained by the lending institutions (on a without notice basis) before the English courts, allegedly in violation of the parties' LCIA arbitration agreement.
• Advising India’s largest private oil and gas company in three UNCITRAL arbitrations against the Indian Government, one in relation to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC, another other relating to gas pricing, and the final in relation to a unitisation dispute.
• Representing a major US-based oil and gas services provider against a Kazakh company in three LCIA arbitrations governed by English law and seated in London.  The dispute involved three separate agreements to provide goods and services to a gas processing and treatment facility in Kazakhstan (interim services, technical consultancy and O&M agreements).  
• Representing a Mexican publishing distributor in a London-based LCIA arbitration against a Greek publishing house. The dispute concerned the breach of an exclusive distribution agreement, and expanded to include copyright and criminal matters. 
• Advising a major US-based oil and gas services provider in dispute avoidance strategies in relation to an explosion at a gas processing plant in Pakistan.

Representative Investment Treaty Matters 

• Advising a large US-based hedge fund on how to structure its investment in the renewables sector in Europe to obtain investment treaty protection, in light of the modernisation process of the Energy Charter Treaty and the Achmea decision by the Court of Justice European Union.
• Advising one of the world's leading media and entertainment companies on restructuring its investment in the Middle East, and revising its web of layered disputes resolution clauses to maximise legal protection while minimising costs in the event of a dispute between the company and its contracting parties.

Other investment treaty cases include

• Patel Engineering Limited v. Mozambique (rail and port project); 
• Boonsom Boonyanit v. Malaysia (real estate investment and judicial misconduct – resulted in favourable settlement); 
• Chevron Corp. & Texaco Petroleum Co. v. Ecuador (oil production and exploration, environmental remediation and corruption); 
• Chevron Corp. & Texaco Petroleum Co. v. Ecuador (oil exploration and production and denial of justice); 
• Chevron Bangladesh Blocks Twelve & Blocks Thirteen & Fourteen v. Bangladesh (natural gas pipelines); 
• Waguih Siag v. Egypt (hotel resort development); 
• El Paso Energy Int’l v. Argentina (hydrocarbon and electricity concessions, including PPAs); 
• Murphy Exploration & Production Int’l v. Ecuador (hydrocarbons exploration and exploitation and windfall profits); 
• S&T Oil Equipment & Machinery Ltd. v. Romania (chemical plant); 
• Impregilo v. Argentina (water services concession); 
• Impregilo II (Caminos de las Sierras) v. Argentina (highway infrastructure construction); 
• Azurix v. Argentina (water and sewer services concession agreement); 
• Exterran v. Venezuela (nationalisation of assets); 
• Pan American Energy and BP Argentina Exploration v. Argentina (hydrocarbon and electricity concessions, including PPAs); 
• Invesmart v. Czech Republic (banking)
• Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentina (natural gas supply and distribution);
• Madagascar Oil Ltd. v. Madagascar (hydrocarbons exploration); 
• CEAC Holdings Ltd. v. Montenegro (aluminium industry); 
• Renco v. Peru (metallurgical complex refining and processing copper, lead, zinc and other metals)