Skip to main content

Maritime Law--Miami Home for Arbitration of Panama Canal Dispute


It is generally presumed that big arbitrations generally go to New York or London. However, the case between the Panama Canal Authority ("ACP") and the contractor consortium constructing the Panama Canal known as Grupos Unidos por el Canal ("GUPC") have recently begun preliminary discussions for arbitrating their $1.6 billion dispute regarding alleged cost overruns on the largest infrastructure project in the Western Hemisphere.  

Photograph taken from news.nationalgeographic.com July 31, 2014
 
Miami's legal community has focused over the past 15 years on developing the expertise and venues to handle arbitration cases, particularly for disputes arising in Latin America. This is especially important, as Miami has the legal expertise, the language capabilities and the cultural experience to handle disputes arising out of Latin America.
 
The Dispute at Issue
 
According to previous statements from ACP and GUPC, the disagreement began in 2012, three years after GUPC beat out Bechtel with a lower bid and began building a series of larger canal locks to accommodate larger ships. GUPC is comprised of Sacyr Vallehermoso, a Spanish contractor leading the consortium, Impregilo of Italy, Jan de Nul of Belgium and CUSA of Panama.
 
In October 2012, GUPC filed a claim for $585 million in unforeseeable concrete design changes. ACP rejected the claim and it was submitted to the Dispute Adjudication Board of the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC").

The ICC had yet to ruled when GUPC presented a disruption claim for $900 million December 23, 2013. A week later, GUPC threatened a work stoppage starting January 20, 2014 if ACP did not pay the combined claims, which amounted to half of the original project cost.

ACP claimed a breach of contract and insisted on holding GUPC to its original bid of $3.2 billion.

Work stopped for a few weeks in February, then resumed at a 30 percent level because GUPC did not have the cash flow to rehire all of its subcontractors. A breakthrough came March 15 when insurer Zurich North America provided a $400 million surety bond, and GUPC and ACP each put up matching funds of $100 million.

The parties will discuss scheduling this week and negotiate the rules of the road on how to proceed with the exchange of information. The parties are following the ICC rules.
 
One way or another, the Panama Canal expansion will get done, and the project partners will settle their differences, but what international arbitration experts will remember is they worked out their problems in Miami.
 
If you are interested in learning more about the details of this unique arbitration or wish to contact me in general, you may do so at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd ., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean. Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship
Post a Comment
Read more

Maritime Law--Jury Hits Royal Caribbean Cruises With $20.3M Verdict for Officer's Hand Injury

In Spearman v. Royal Caribbean Cruises , Case No. 2011-023730-CA-01, a Miami-Dade County, Florida jury has awarded $20.3 million to a former crewmember of Royal Caribbean Cruises, whose hand was crushed while coming to the aid of a fellow worker during an emergency test in 2008. After a three-week trial, the jury found the Miami-based cruise company negligent in operating an unseaworthy ship and 100 percent liable for the injuries suffered by Lisa Spearman, who was working an officer on Royal Caribbean’s Voyager of the Seas . Spearman sued the company in 2011, three years after her right hand was caught in a watertight power door during a fire-safety drill. According to her lawyers, Spearman was trying to prevent the door from closing on the ship’s nurse when her hand was pulled into a recess pocket of the sliding door and crushed.  The nurse allegedly breached the company’s safety protocol when she stumbled through the door, prompting the response from Spearman. Accordin
Post a Comment
Read more