Anders Junker-Nilsson

Lawyers

Partner
Paris

ajunkernilsson@gbsdisputes.com
+33 7 72 38 98 90

Anders Junker-Nilsson is a partner at Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes.

He specializes in international commercial and investment arbitration and represents private multinational corporations, States and State-owned entities in a variety of institutional and ad hoc proceedings, including under ICSID, ICC, UNCITRAL, SCC, DIS and NAI rules.

Anders also acts as counsel in arbitration-related proceedings before Swedish courts.

Prior to joining our team, Anders practiced for several years as an associate in the arbitration department of a leading international law firm in Stockholm and acted as secretary to Swedish renowned arbitrator Lars Edlund (retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Sweden) in several SCC arbitrations and served as law clerk at the Stockholm District Court.

Meet Anders: Read his interview

Anders’ experience includes advising and representing:

International arbitration

Chinese telecoms giant Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Claimant in an ICSID arbitration initiated against the Kingdom of Sweden under the China-Sweden bilateral investment treaty (ICSID Case No. ARB/22/2). The dispute relates to a number of measures taken by Sweden directly targeting Huawei’s investments in Sweden and excluding our client from the roll-out of 5G network products and services in the country.
Pharmaceutical group Sanofi in an ICC arbitration in Geneva initiated by Boehringer Ingelheim that arose out of an acquisition and concerned liability relating to third party claims. Swiss law applied. The Tribunal fully dismissed the claims against Sanofi seeking indemnification for potential losses in connection with ongoing mass tort litigation in the United States.
Sonangol E.P., Respondent in three parallel NAI arbitrations in Amsterdam against Exem Energy B.V., a holding company beneficially owned by Isabel dos Santos. The dispute related to high-profile matters of embezzlement, corruption and money-laundering in relation to a joint venture agreement. Dutch and Angolan law applied. Sonangol enjoyed complete victory in all three cases, including findings in the main NAI arbitration that the relevant transaction could only be explained as an example of “grand corruption”. As a result, the relevant transaction has been declared null and void and Sonangol has been restored to its 100% shareholder position.
Five gas importers, Respondents in SCC and UNCITRAL arbitrations in Stockholm initiated by an upstream supplier. The disputes arose from a gas price revision clause in long-term supply contracts. Swedish law applied.
A European life sciences company, Respondent in an arbitration brought by a European chemical company seeking indemnification under a Share Purchase Agreement. The law of the Claimant’s State applied.
A French-German contractor consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over EUR 6.1 billion was at stake.
A Swedish consortium in an ICC arbitration in Miami against a U.S. utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a tunnel in Panama. Swedish law applied.

Enforcement and setting aside proceedings

Georgia in proceedings initiated before the Svea Court of Appeal to request a declaration that a SCC-tribunal lacked jurisdiction in a case brought against the State by Mr. Zaza Okuashvili. The underlying dispute, which was brought under the Georgia-U.K. bilateral investment treaty, related to taxes owed to the State by various companies owned by Mr. Okuashvili.
The Republic of Lithuania in annulment proceedings before the Svea Court of Appeal relating to an SCC arbitration in Stockholm against Gazprom. The underlying dispute related to Gazprom’s obligations to supply gas based on fair prices under the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement between Lithuania and Gazprom as well as Gazprom’s breaches of its obligations under the Shareholders’ Agreement, resulting in overpayments in excess of EUR 1.54 billion.
Two gas importers in parallel annulment proceedings before the Svea Court of Appeal regarding the annulment of awards rendered in an UNCITRAL and an SCC arbitration in Stockholm. The underlying arbitrations, which were initiated by an upstream supplier, arose from gas price revision clauses in long-term supply contracts. Swedish law applied.
Norwegian real estate investment firm in annulment proceedings before the Svea Court of Appeal relating to an SCC arbitration in Stockholm against a Russian investment company. The underlying dispute related to payment of debts under an investment agreement.

“Arbitrator Challenges and Parallel Appointments – Striking the Balance between Efficiency and Impartiality,” German Arbitration Journal (SchiedsVZ), 1/2022
“The Revised Swedish Arbitration Act,” German Arbitration Journal (SchiedsVZ), 3/2019
“Inconsistent Awards in Investment Arbitration: Is an Appeal Court needed?,” 30(5) Journal of International Arbitration 579 (2013) (co-author)

Lawyers