Zongyao (Eric) Li

Selected experience

• Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Claimant in an ICSID arbitration against the Kingdom of Sweden (ICSID Case No. ARB/22/2). The dispute relates to Sweden’s ban of Huawei’s equipment from 5G infrastructures in Sweden and the claims are brought under the China-Sweden bilateral investment treaty.
• An international joint venture in an ICC arbitration in Paris brought by a European contractor. The dispute concerns the construction of a gas processing facility in Africa. The law of the country of the project applies.
• A U.S. technology company and its European subsidiary, Claimants in a HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a Chinese technology company. The dispute arises from the breach of a software license and maintenance agreement. The law of California applies.
• The People’s Republic of China in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.
• A Pakistani Independent Power Producer (IPP) in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against a Pakistani State-owned entity. The dispute arises from Power Purchase Agreements and is governed by English law.
• A Chinese State-owned telecommunication provider, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.
• Ukraine, Respondent in an SCC arbitration in Stockholm brought by VEB.RF. The dispute relates to sanctions and other measures allegedly targeting Russian banks in Ukraine after 2014. The claims are brought under the 1998 Ukraine-Russia bilateral investment treaty.
• An international joint venture in an ICC emergency arbitration in Paris brought by a European contractor in relation to the construction of a gas processing facility in Africa. The law of the Respondent’s State applied.
• The subsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector, Respondent in two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements relating to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants’ State applied.
• The Australian subsidiary of a Chinese company, Claimant in a CIETAC arbitration in Beijing against an Australian company. The dispute concerned the supply of complex mining equipment. Chinese law applied.