Christopher Moore’s practice focuses on international arbitration and litigation, including on behalf of sovereign States and State-owned entities.
He has represented multinational corporations in complex international commercial arbitrations across a range of industries seated in the world’s most frequently selected arbitral seats and before tribunals formed under the rules of the leading institutional and ad hoc arbitration regimes, including the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), and UNCITRAL, and litigation matters before state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Chris also has extensive experience acting as counsel in matters involving foreign states in investor-state disputes under the rules of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and international litigation, including litigation involving the immunity of foreign states and their agencies under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and public international law.
He is currently based in London, and from 2000-2012 was resident in the New York office.
Disputes Involving Foreign States and State-Owned Entities
The Hellenic Republic in an ICSID arbitration brought by Poštová banks a.s. and Istrokapital SE, under the Hellenic Republic-Slovak Republic and Hellenic Republic-Cyprus bilateral investment treaties, resulting in dismissal of all claims for lack of jurisdiction and subsequent confirmation by an ICSID ad hoc committee.
The Hellenic Republic in two pending ICSID arbitrations brought by Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd and Bank of Cyprus Public Co. Ltd under the Cyprus-Hellenic Republic bilateral investment treaty.
The Republic of Austria in the first ICSID arbitration brought against that state, resulting in dismissal of all claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The Government of Georgia in relation to a construction-related dispute under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
The Republic of Argentina in the defense of numerous cases brought in connection with Argentina’s 2001 economic crises, including defeating several attempts by creditors to obtain restraining orders and/or orders of attachment (see, e.g., EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 131 F. App’x 745 (2d Cir. 2005); Capital Ventures Int’l v. Republic of Argentina, 280 F. App’x 14 (2d Cir. 2008)), defeating a creditor’s attempt to seize Argentina’s presidential airplane (see Colella v. Republic of Argentina, 2007 WL 1545204 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2007) (declaring Argentina’s presidential airplane immune from execution)), and advising the Republic of Argentina in connection with the restraint of the Argentine warship ARA Libertad in Ghana and the ultimate release of that vessel.
Argentine Province of Mendoza in its defeat of attempts to block the restructuring of its external debt (see Greylock Global Opportunity Master Fund Ltd. v. Province of Mendoza, 162 F. App’x 85 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment on claims challenging “exit consent” amendments to sovereign debt indenture); Rabbi Jacob Joseph Sch. v. Province of Mendoza, 425 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2005)).
The Republic of Nicaragua on litigation aspects of its external commercial debt cash buyback offer.
International Commercial Arbitration
Telecom Italia International N.V and Telecom Italia S.p.A in an ICC arbitration in Paris, involving a $15 billion dispute under a settlement agreement resolving a previous contest for control of a Brazilian company, in which all claims against Telecom Italia were dismissed.
A North American automotive supplier in a DIS arbitration under German law relating to the validity and breach of a long-term supply agreement involving claims in excess of $1 billion.
A major oil and gas company in an SCC arbitration seated in Stockholm relating to a shareholder dispute in a Greek joint venture company.
A Russian investment bank in an LCIA arbitration arising out of corporate restructuring and related court proceedings in Bermuda.
ENI North Africa B.V in an ICC arbitration based on a long-term contract for the sale of Libyan gas in Italy.
A Dubai-based investment fund in a confidential LCIA arbitration governed by English law related to the Kazakh telecom sector.
A construction company in an ICC arbitration seated in London arising out of EPC agreement.
A commercial space satellite launch service provider in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in Stockholm involving claims alleging the breach of certain contracts governing the provision of space satellite launching services.
A Russian telecommunications company in an LCIA arbitration.
A Singapore-based investment fund in an LCIA arbitration concerning a joint venture in Ethiopia.
Russian hockey player Danis Zaripov in appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport challenging his two-year suspension by the International Ice Hockey Federation, and obtaining highly favorable settlement permitting him to immediately resume playing professional hockey for the AK BARS hockey club of the Kontinental Hockey League.
BHP Billiton in connection with litigation stemming from BHP Billiton’s unsolicited $40 billion all-cash offer to acquire PotashCorp.
Citigroup, a former tenant in 7 World Trade Center, in litigation related to the collapse of that building on September 11, 2001.
A major financial institution in litigation concerning proprietary software designed to value complex financial instruments.
Foreign and domestic companies in litigation involving patent and trademark disputes, including the Italian motorcycle manufacturer Ducati in a motorcycle naming rights case.
Co-chair of the London Pro Bono Committee. Current pro bono projects in the London office include: Death penalty project in collaboration with Reprieve and Cornell Law School; assisting individuals seeking resettlement through the International Refugee Assistance Project; sponsoring Toynbee Hall’s women-only Saturday morning Free Legal Advice Clinic; and advising The Entrepreneurial Refugee Network, which supports refugees seeking to start new businesses in the UK.
Obtained the release of an improperly held detainee from Guantánamo Bay, and successfully obtaining asylum relief for him in Albania. See Zakirjan v. Bush, No. 05-Cv-2053 (D.D.C.) (HHK); see also Hamlily v. Gates, No. 07-1127 (D.C. Cir.) (representing detainee ultimately released to Algeria).
Pro bono representation of the family of a victim of the September 11 attacks before the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.
- Member of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Institute
- Member of the International Bar Association (IBA)
- Member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)
- Member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
- ICC Institute Masterclass for Arbitrators
“Judgment Creditor Successfully Challenges ‘Uncertain’ Arbitration Award in the English Court,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, July 16, 2020
“Circuit Split Intensifies Over Use of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Obtain Discovery for Use in Private International Arbitration,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, July 13, 2020
“International Arbitration in the Time of COVID-19: Navigating the Evolving Procedural Features and Practices of Leading Arbitral Institutions,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, July 10, 2020
“In Annulment Proceedings Over ICC Award, Paris Court Rules on Nature of U.S., EU, and UN Sanctions,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, July 20, 2020)
“Supreme Court Holds That New York Convention Does Not Preclude Non-Signatories From Invoking State Law Principles To Compel Arbitration,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum, June 3, 2020
“Most EU Member States Agree to Terminate Their Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum, May 7, 2020
“COVID-19: Public Health Emergency Measures and State Defenses in International Investment Law,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum, April 28, 2020
“U.S. District Court Denies Section 1782 Discovery for Use in DIS Arbitration, Highlighting Deepening Circuit Split on Statute’s Applicability to Private Commercial Arbitrations,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum, April 3, 2020
“The Impact of Sanctions on Arbitration: A Recent Case Study Involving the EU Sanctions Regime,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum, September 16, 2019
“Sanctions and Arbitration,” IBA Arbitration Committee newsletter, September 2019
“African States Launch the Operational Phase of the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memorandum, July 31, 2019
“Cross-Examination Against the Clock,” Take the Witness: Cross-Examination in International Arbitration,, 2nd edition. Co-authored by Christopher Moore and Richard Kreindler, March 2019
“Annulment of UK Award Does Not Entail Removal of Arbitrators When Proceedings are Re-Opened,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, December 17, 2018
“The HKIAC Council Approves the 2018 Administered Arbitration Rules,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, October 22, 2018
“Competing Priorities in the Fight Against Doping,” Russian Arbitration Association September 2018 Newsletter
“Bridgestone Arbitral Tribunal Rules That Trademarks and Trademark Licenses May Constitute Protected Investments,” Oxford Business Law Blog, May 2018
Thorny Questions for IP Rights Under Investment Treaties, Law360, March 14, 2018
“European Court of Justice: Investor-State Arbitration Under Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties Is Incompatible With EU Law,” Cleary Gottlieb Alert Memo, March 9, 2018
“Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements Enters into Force,” Business Law Review, Wolters Kluwer. Co-authored by Christopher Moore, Nathaniel Jedrey and Konrad Rodgers. February 2016
December 03, 2019
October 22, 2019
October 20, 2019
October 01, 2019
July 01, 2019
June 19, 2019
May 16, 2019
April 10, 2019
March 07, 2019
November 07, 2018
October 30, 2018
October 10, 2018
September 13, 2018
July 05, 2018
April 10, 2018
April 09, 2018
November 01, 2017
November 05, 2015
June 03, 2015
March 19, 2015
March 14, 2015
March 26, 2014