Philippe Pinsolle and Simon Vorburger, partners at Quinn Emanuel, played pivotal roles in securing a historic €14 billion arbitration award for Uniper against Gazprom. They unravel the dramatic halt of gas supplies by Gazprom, which sent shockwaves through the German energy market. The discussion highlights the questionable force majeure claims made by Gazprom, revealing inconsistencies that shaped the case. The arbitration process, conducted without Gazprom's direct participation, showcased both the complexities and urgency of navigating legal challenges amidst an energy crisis.
The landmark €14 billion arbitration award exemplifies the legal complexities and contractual enforcement issues arising from geopolitical crises in energy supply.
Despite Gazprom's claims of force majeure, Uniper successfully dismantled their defense by proving alternative gas supply options existed prior to the cessation of delivery.
Deep dives
Background of the Arbitration Case
The case revolves around a significant arbitration involving a 14 billion euro award granted to Uniper, a German gas supplier, against Gazprom Export, a Russian gas company. The arbitration was prompted by an unprecedented situation where Gazprom halted gas supplies, which were crucial as they accounted for 40% of the German market. Uniper found itself in a dire financial predicament, facing skyrocketing market prices and potential bankruptcy due to the sudden discontinuation of gas flow and insufficient contractual support from Gazprom. The complexity of the case was further heightened by the geopolitical context and the intricacies of European gas pricing and supply chain mechanisms.
Challenges of Proving Force Majeure
A critical aspect of the arbitration was Gazprom's claim of force majeure to justify the gas supply cessation, which Uniper disputed vigorously. The legal team highlighted the discrepancies in Gazprom’s timeline, noting that while the Nord Stream pipeline explosion occurred after the gas flow had already ceased, they had retroactively declared force majeure without credible justification. The burden was on Uniper to dismantle Gazprom's defense by demonstrating that sufficient alternative pipelines remained functional and capable of delivering gas. This involved extensive research and analysis to prove that, despite Gazprom's claims, gas could still be supplied under their long-term contracts.
Geopolitical Implications and Outcomes
Throughout the arbitration process, the lawyers remained acutely aware of the wider geopolitical implications stemming from the energy crisis in Europe, greatly influenced by Russia's actions. Despite external pressures, the legal team focused on the contractual enforcement aspects without being sidetracked by the geopolitical landscape. Ultimately, Uniper successfully received a landmark 14 billion euro award. However, the aftermath of the case was complex, with Uniper facing bankruptcy and requiring a government bailout, prompting discussions around how the arbitration's financial proceeds would be allocated.
John is joined by Philippe Pinsolle, Head of International Arbitration for Continental Europe and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Geneva office, and Simon Vorburger, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Zurich office. They discuss the €14 billion international arbitration award, one of the largest arbitration awards ever, that Philippe and Simon obtained for Quinn Emanuel client, Uniper, a German gas supplier, against Gazprom Export, a Russian gas company. The case began in mid-2022 when Gazprom unexpectedly halted gas supplies to Uniper, which severely impacted the German energy market, as Gazprom had been supplying 40% of Germany's gas. Uniper then had to purchase gas at prices as high as ten times the previous price to fulfill its obligations, leading the company to the verge of bankruptcy. Gazprom's justification for stopping the gas was based on force majeure, claiming that unforeseen events, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine and damage to the Nord Stream pipeline, made it impossible for Gazprom to deliver the gas. These justifications lacked credibility because, for among other reasons, some of the claimed force majeure events occurred after Gazprom stopped delivering the gas. Philippe explains that the arbitration process moved quickly with the arbitration beginning in November 2022. The arbitration hearings were held in The Hague, but Gazprom did not participate directly, opting to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction from a Russian court. Despite Gazprom's absence, the team had to rigorously prove up their case, because default judgments are not permitted in international arbitration. This made the Uniper claimant’s burden more challenging in some ways in that without an opponent making specific claims, the Quinn Emanuel team had to convince the arbitrators that there were no plausible defenses to Uniper’s claims, and despite every force majeure event, Gazprom had asserted, it still could have fulfilled the contract at issue. Another key legal challenge was Uniper’s "take-or-pay" contracts, which required Uniper to pay for gas whether it was delivered or not. The team convinced the tribunal to allow Uniper to terminate these contracts. Philippe addresses the challenge of staying focused on the contractual claim at issue despite the broader geopolitical context of the arbitration, including the 2022 European energy crisis and Russia's role in manipulating gas supplies to Europe. The podcast concludes with a discussion about the German government’s bailout of Uniper and that the proceeds of the arbitration will benefit the German state.