Photo of Nikhil Gore

Nikhil Gore

Nikhil V. Gore is a partner in Covington’s financial services and arbitration practices, representing sovereigns, financial institutions, and global corporations in civil and criminal investigations, as well as cross-border arbitrations and disputes.

In his financial services investigations and enforcement practice, Nikhil leads anti-financial crime investigations, as well as a wide range of financial institution governance, control, safety and soundness, and consumer and market conduct matters. He was lead counsel for a global bank in its recent trade surveillance resolutions with U.S. bank regulators, represented another global financial institution in successfully navigating multi-year criminal and civil investigations concerning an alleged corruption scheme in Asia, and has represented regional and community banks across the country in contesting and negotiating supervisory and enforcement outcomes before the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC. He also counsels clients on BSA/AML regulations, and the structure and functioning of their control, compliance, and audit frameworks.

In his disputes practice, Nikhil is part of the Covington team representing Ukraine in state-to-state arbitrations against the Russian Federation and was appointed by the Prosecutor-General of Ukraine to the Legal Task Force on Accountability for Russian War Crimes. He regularly handles treaty arbitrations and commercial disputes spanning Asia, Eastern Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa.

Contact:Read more about Nikhil GoreEmail

Project development agreements with states and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are often governed by the law of the host country (sometimes with freezing, stabilization, or other limiting clauses), while also being subject to arbitration seated in a neutral venue.  The assumption is that the courts of the neutral venue will have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration and confirm, or set aside, any arbitral award.

A decision issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in P&ID v. Nigeria puts that assumption in doubt by suggesting that an award can also be set aside by the courts of the state whose substantive law applies to the merits of the dispute.  Together with recent judgments in other jurisdictions, the decision underscores the importance for investors of:  (i) resisting selection of the host state’s substantive law where possible; and (ii) particularly where that is not possible, including express language confirming the parties’ agreement that, notwithstanding the choice of the host state’s law to govern interpretation of the contract, the arbitration process will be governed by the law of the arbitral seat.
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Decision Underscores Need for Careful Drafting of Choice of Law Clauses in Host Country Agreements