David Riesenberg
Biography
Overview
David Riesenberg is counsel in the Firm's International Arbitration and Litigation Practice Groups. David has represented and advised sovereign States and private companies in international arbitrations before tribunals of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), as well as in ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
David has also represented and advised sovereign States, State-owned enterprises, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties in litigation before the US Courts of Appeals, the US District Courts, and the DC Superior Court. In association with local counsel, David has advised clients regarding transnational disputes involving litigation before the national courts of Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, India, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. David has also advised or represented sovereign States in confidential matters, including those involving sensitive political topics and national security.
David is a significant contributor to the firm’s pro bono work. This part of his practice has included litigating questions of religious freedom under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, as well as defending claims for combat-related compensation on behalf of injured veterans.
David previously worked as a law clerk for the Hon. W. Eugene Davis of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and for the Hon. Kathleen Cardone of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Experience
Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd. v. Russian Federation
Representing the Russian Federation before the US Court of Appeals and the US District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as in related foreign litigation, involving the attempted enforcement of arbitral awards worth allegedly US$ 50 billion.
Al-Qarqani v. Saudi Arabian Oil Company
Representing Saudi Arabian Oil Company ("Saudi Aramco") in litigation before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas to resist the enforcement of a fraudulent arbitration award rendered in Egypt. The claimants are seeking compensation worth allegedly US$ 18 billion.
Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation et al.
Representing an indirect subsidiary of Rosatom ("TENEX-USA") in US litigation concerning an award of US$ 122 million in court-ordered sanctions against the Russian Federation. The litigation was commenced by Agudas Chasidei Chabad in a dispute over the ownership of certain religious books and manuscripts in the possession of the Russian State Library.
Krivenko et al. v. Russian Federation et al.
Represented the Russian Federation before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in litigation involving claims worth allegedly more than US$ 500 million relating to the ownership of a shipbuilding entity. After the Russian Federation submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the claims were withdrawn completely without any compensation paid.
Federal Elektrik Yatirim Ve Ticaret A.Ş. and others v. Republic of Uzbekistan
Represented the Republic of Uzbekistan in an ICSID arbitration under the Turkey-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty with respect to the claimants' alleged investment in the gas meter industry in Uzbekistan. The Tribunal dismissed all economic claims in their entirety, and the parties resolved the single remaining claim by agreement.
Spentex Netherlands, B.V. v. Republic of Uzbekistan
Represented the Republic of Uzbekistan in an ICSID arbitration under the Netherlands-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty concerning textile companies. Uzbekistan prevailed in obtaining the dismissal of all of the claims totalling US$ 130 million.
Freedom Watch, Inc., v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
Represented OPEC in litigation before the US District Court for the District of Columbia involving alleged price fixing and market division. OPEC prevailed in obtaining the dismissal of all the claims.
Jam v. International Finance Corp.,
Represented the IFC, a member organization of the World Bank, in litigation before the US District Court for the District of Columbia involving alleged environmental torts in the Republic of India. The IFC prevailed before the lower courts, although the US Supreme Court has subsequently reversed and remanded in February 2019. The litigation is still pending.
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan
Represented the Republic of Uzbekistan in an ICSID arbitration under the Israel-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty concerning metal products. Uzbekistan prevailed in obtaining dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. This was the first successful dismissal of claims based on corruption-related defenses in any dispute arising under a bilateral investment treaty.
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal
Represented Myanmar before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the first adjudicated boundary delimitation to concern maritime entitlements beyond 200 nautical miles from the States’ coastal baselines.
Carolyn B. Lamm, Eckhard R. Hellbeck, David P. Riesenberg, An Arbitrator's Duties: Due Process and Trust in Investor-State Arbitration, 2 BCDR International Arbitration Review, No. 2 (2015), 357–371
Carolyn B. Lamm, Eckhard R. Hellbeck, and David P. Riesenberg, Theories of Liability and Responsibility, in International Financial Disputes – Arbitration and Mediation (Golden & Lamm, eds. OUP 2015)
Carolyn B. Lamm, Eckhard R. Hellbeck, and David P. Riesenberg, The Two Annulment Decisions in Amco Asia and 'Non-Application' of Applicable Law by ICSID Tribunals, in Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration (Caron et al, eds. OUP 2015)
David P. Riesenberg, Introductory Note to Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 54 I.L.M. 53 (2015)
David P. Riesenberg, Recent Jurisprudence Addressing Maritime Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Coast, 18 ASIL INSIGHTS, Issue 21 (2014)
David P. Riesenberg, Introductory Note to Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), 53 I.L.M. 425 (2014)
David P. Riesenberg, Introductory Note to Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), 52 I.L.M. 1 (2013)
David P. Riesenberg, Introductory Note to Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), 51 I.L.M. 840 (2012)
International Financial Law Review, "Rising Star" in the United States and in Commercial Arbitration (2020)
