The Canadian sole practitioner is acting on claims against Mexico and Laos
|Pending cases as counsel||6|
|Value of pending counsel work||US$6.413 billion|
Todd Weiler is an investment treaty arbitration specialist based in London, Ontario.
His background is in public policy and international trade. He worked as a trade policy analyst for the Canadian government before being lured away by Barry Appleton to assist on some of the earliest NAFTA cases against Canada.
Weiler founded a website devoted to NAFTA claims in 1999 and began acting on behalf of other law firms in an independent capacity. He is regarded as an authority on investment treaty law and still receives instructions despite the proliferation of firms with dedicated practices in this area.
He primarily serves as co-counsel or consulting counsel in treaty disputes, teaming up with other practitioners on a case-by-case basis. He also sits as an arbitrator and publishes widely in the field. He has edited more than a dozen books and authored more than 60 academic articles and book chapters. The Interpretation of International Investment Law, published in 2013, earned him a doctorate from the University of Michigan.
In 2006, he founded the annual Juris Conference on investment law and arbitration in Washington, DC. He continues to co-chair the event with Crowell & Moring’s Ian Laird. With Laird, he also co-founded and runs the popular website investmentclaims.com, which they now manage for Oxford University Press.
He is one of the co-founders of the Society of International Economic Law and was one of the four practitioners chosen by Thomas Wälde’s widow to ensure his legacy projects, OGEMID and TDM, would be maintained and grow.
Who uses him?
Weiler has acted in cases relating to Barbados, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Kenya, Laos, Mexico, Mongolia and Peru, as well as on a claim by indigenous tobacco producers against the United States. He has teamed with Debevoise & Plimpton, Vinson & Elkins, Dentons and Fasken Martineau.
Weiler also acts for non-disputing parties in investor-state cases. He represented the Native American Quechan Nation, which was accorded a privileged position in a NAFTA dispute between Glamis Gold and the US over Quechan traditional lands.
Another client was an international NGO that helped Uruguay to fend off an ICSID claim by Phillip Morris over the state’s tobacco-packaging legislation.
One of his biggest successes came in Siag & Vecchi v Egypt, which produced a US$132 million ICSID award for the claimant in 2009. Weiler, who acted for Siag after a referral from a previous client, auditioned law firms on the businessman’s behalf. After settling on a team from King & Spalding, he continued to advise in the background all the way through to the final award.
Weiler was also part of the team that won the first damages award against Canada in SD Myers v Canada, in which the tribunal awarded damages not only for harm caused to the investment in Canadian territory, but also for losses the investor suffered in the US.
Weiler was instructed by US motorcycle manufacturer Vento to bring a NAFTA claim against Canada in 2017. The case concerns the imposition of a mandatory customs duty on imported bikes after Mexican authorities concluded they were made in China rather than the US. He has teamed with Mexican firm Aguilar & Loera in the case.
The Canadian also continues to advise Sanum Investments and Lao Holdings – two gaming companies owned by US businessman John Baldwin – in a billion-dollar dispute over a casino in Laos, which has been playing out on several fronts.
In late 2017, he helped Baldwin’s companies win permission to revive a pair of BIT claims against Laos on the ground that the state had materially breached a settlement agreement. He is representing the same companies in two additional BIT claims concerning Laos’ conduct in the wake of the settlement. He is working with Dallas firm Lackey Hershman on those cases, following the withdrawal of Debevoise & Plimpton.
A DR-CAFTA case that Weiler was pursuing on behalf of US real estate investors against Costa Rica came to a premature end, with the clients opting to discontinue the claim in the wake of a largely unfavourable jurisdictional ruling.