Chemás & Asociados has extensive experience in advising national and foreign companies in the management of contractual disputes before different jurisdictions and arbitration courts.
Our legal team has represented various companies before the Arbitration Courts, the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction, the Civil Jurisdiction, the Constitutional Jurisdiction, the Administrative Route and tax liability processes. We have also been legal advisors in matters of public procurement awards, licensing matters and litigation prevention and conflict resolution.
PUBLIC COMPANIES OF MEDELLIN vs. INGETEC-SEDIC CONSORTIUM (controversy that arose during the execution of the Hidroituango Project)
Apoderados del Consorcio INGETEC-SEDIC Pretensiones: 4.3 billones de pesos. Actualmente en curso.
PUBLIC COMPANIES OF MEDELLIN vs. INGETEC-SEDIC CONSORTIUM (controversy that arose during the execution of the Hidroituango Project)
Representatives of the INGETEC-SEDIC Consortium Claims: 4.3 billion pesos
CGR DOÑA JUANA vs. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Representatives of the Concessionaire CGR DOÑA JUANA Claims: 1.3 billion pesos Currently in progress.
Educational Headquarters Consortium (INGETEC SAS and PAYC SAS) vs. FFIE Consortium BBVA Alliance
Representatives of the Educational Headquarters Consortium Claims: 36 billion pesos Currently in progress.
SASESP THERMO LIGHTER vs. EQUION ENERGY LIMITED
Representatives of TERMOMECHERO SASESP Claims: 19 billion pesos Currently in progress.
CONCESSIONAIRE TEMPORARY UNION MALLA VIAL DEL VALLE DEL CAUCA AND CAUCA vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI
Representatives of CONCESSIONARIA UTDVVCC Claims: 600 billion pesos Currently in progress.
COLOMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS (Movistar) vs ETB (2021)
Representatives of COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES Claims: 43 billion pesos plus default interest Result: It was reconciled for 110 billion pesos in favor of COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES.
CONINSA RAMÓN HSA vs. AES CHIVOR SCAESP (2020)
Representatives of CONINSA RAMÓN HSA Claims: Our client sued for 5 billion pesos and the counterparty counterclaimed for the sum of 18 billion pesos. Result: It was settled for 4 billion pesos in favor of our client and the counterparty withdrew its counterclaim in its entirety.
CODAD SAS vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (2020)
Representatives of CODAD SAS Claims: 60 billion pesos Result: It was reconciled by crossing values with the following case.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI vs. CODAD SAS (2019)
Representatives of CODAD SAS Claims of the ANI: 64 billion pesos Result: It was reconciled by crossing values with the previous case.
CODAD SAS vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (2019)
Representatives of CODAD SAS Claims: 21 billion pesos Result: It was reconciled for 17 billion pesos.
CONCESSIONAIRE TEMPORARY UNION MALLA VIAL DEL VALLE DEL CAUCA AND CAUCA vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (2018)
Representatives of Concesionaria UTDVVCC Claims: 900 billion pesos Result: The National Infrastructure Agency (ANI) was sentenced for 825 billion pesos.
CONINSA RAMÓN HSA vs. CERREJON SA (2018)
Representatives of CONINSA RAMÓN HSA Claims: 24,600 million pesos Result: Cerrejón was ordered to pay the sum of 14 billion pesos.
CEMEX ENERGY SA vs. LA CASCADA SAS and POPAL SAS (2017)
Attorneys of La Cascada SAS and Popal SAS Claims: 8,500 million pesos Result: The Court exonerated La Cascada SAS and Popal SAS of all claims and ordered Cemex Energy SA to pay the value of the pecuniary penalty clause.
CONCESSIONAIRE RUTA DEL SOL SAS vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (2017)
Representatives of Concesionaria Ruta del Sol SAS Claims: 700 billion pesos Result: We renounce representation.
PAVEMENTS COLOMBIA SAS vs. MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO DE CALI (2017)
Representatives of Pavimentos Colombia SA Claims: 30 billion pesos. Result: The municipality of Cali was sentenced to pay the sum of 25 billion pesos.
CONCESSIONAIRE RUTA DEL SOL SAS vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (2017)
Representatives of Concesionaria Ruta del Sol SAS Claims: 700 billion pesos Result: We renounce representation.
CONCESSIONAIRE RUTA DEL SOL SAS vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (2) (2016)
Representatives of Concesionaria Ruta del Sol SAS Claims: 400 billion pesos Result: We renounce representation.
CONCESSIONAIRE RUTA DEL SOL SAS vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (1) (2016)
Representatives of Concesionaria Ruta del Sol SAS Claims: 700 billion pesos Result: We renounce representation.
AUTOPISTAS DE SANTANDER SA vs. ANI (2) – 2016
Representatives of Autopistas de Santander SA Claims: 71 billion pesos. Result: Reconciled with early termination of the contract.
AUTOPISTAS DE SANTANDER SA vs. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY – ANI (1) (2016)
Representatives of Autopistas de Santander SA Claims: 83 billion pesos. Result: Settled for 83 billion with early termination of the contract.
TERMOEMCALI SAESP vs. TGI SAESP (2015)
Representatives of Termoemcali SAESP Claims: 50 billion pesos. Result: Sentence was pronounced in favor of Termoemcali.
ECOPETROL SA vs. TERMOEMCALI SAESP (2014)
Representatives of Termoemcali SAESP Claims: 6,300 million pesos. Result: Termoemcali SAESP was exonerated from all claims.
SOCHAGOTA ELECTRIC COMPANY SAESP vs. BOYACÁ ENERGY COMPANY SAESP AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT SAESP (2013)
Representatives of Compañía Eléctrica de Sochagota SAESP Claims: 32 billion pesos Result: It was reconciled for 23 billion pesos.
SOCHAGOTA ELECTRIC COMPANY SAESP vs. BOYACÁ ENERGY COMPANY SAESP AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT SAESP (2012)
Representatives of Compañía Eléctrica de Sochagota SAESP Claims: 74 billion pesos. Result: Gestión Energética SAESP and the Boyacá Energy Company SAESP were sentenced for 73.8 billion pesos.
TELEDIFUSIÓN SA vs. COLOMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAESP (2012)
Representatives of Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP Claims: 13 billion pesos. Result: Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP was exonerated from all claims.
KADAS SA vs. COLOMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAESP (2009)
Representatives of Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP Claims: 1 million dollars. Result: Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP was exonerated from all claims.
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SA vs. COLOMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAESP (2008)
Representatives of Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP Claims: 60 billion pesos. Result: Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP was sentenced for 4 billion pesos.
CONSTRUCTORA ANDRADE GUTIERREZ SA vs. NATIONAL ROAD INSTITUTE (2007)
Representatives of the Constructora Andrade Gutiérrez SA Claims: 73 billion pesos. Result: INVIAS was sentenced for 73 billion pesos.
SWEDTEL AKTIEBOLAG AND SWEDTEL DE COLOMBIA vs. COLOMBIATELECOMUNICACIONES SAESP (2006)
Representatives of Colombia Telecomunicaciones SAESP Claims: 25 million dollars. Result: Colombia Telecomunicaciones SA .SP was exonerated from the claims.
BOYACA ENERGY COMPANY SAESP vs. SOCHAGOTA ELECTRICAL COMPANY SAESP (2004)
CES representatives. Claims: 600 million dollars. Result: CES was absolved of all claims.
ASTALDI ACCIDENTAL ASSOCIATION – ICE vs. MISICUNI COMPANY (Bolivia) (2) (2003)
Representatives of the Misicuni Company. Claims: 15 million dollars. Result: It was reconciled without payments.
GRADESA BUSTAMANTE CONSORTIUM vs. ICBF (2002)
Representatives of the Gradesa Bustamante Consortium. Claims: 750 million pesos. Result: The ICBF was sentenced for 600 million pesos.
AUGUSTO RUIZ CORREDOR Y CIA. LTDA. vs. CONSTRUCTORA ANDRADE GUTIERREZ SA (2002)
Representatives of the Constructora Andrade Gutiérrez SA Claims: 5 billion pesos. Result: Constructora Andrade Gutiérrez SA was sentenced to pay one billion pesos.
ASTALDI ACCIDENTAL ASSOCIATION – ICE vs. MISICUNI COMPANY (Bolivia)(1)(2001)
Representatives of the Misicuni Company. Claims: 3 million dollars. Result: The Misicuni Company was absolved of all claims.
DICEL SAESP vs. TRINITY SA (2001)
Attorneys of Dicel SAESP Claims: 2 million dollars. Result: Trinity SA was awarded $2 million.
UNION TEMPORAL DISTRAL SA and CMD SA and the TITO MARCELO CONSORTIUM, PAVICON LTDA and PRIMONT LTDA. vs. ECOPETROL (2001)
Representatives of the Temporary Union. Claims: 25 billion pesos. Result: The Arbitration Court declared itself unable to rule because after the presentation of the claim, the contracting entity declared the expiration of the contract.
TERMORIO SAESP vs. ELECTRANTA SAESP (2000)
Representatives of Termorío SAESP Claims: 62 million dollars. Result: Electranta SAESP was ordered to pay 62 million dollars. However, the award was annulled by the Council of State in a precarious decision motivated by pressure from the national government.
HONEY CONSORTIUM I (ODEBRECHT – ABB – GMD DE MEXICO) vs. HIDROMONE SAESP (2000)
Representatives of Hidromiel SAESP Claims: 48 million dollars. Result: Hidromiel SAESP was absolved of all claims.
TEBSA SA ESP vs. CONTECO SA ESP. (2000)
Representatives of Conteco SA Claims: 1,550 million pesos. Result: Conteco SA ESP was acquitted of all claims.
INGETEC SA CONSORTIUM – ETA SA vs. BUCARAMANGA METROPOLITAN AQUEDUCT COMPANY (1997)
Representatives of the INGETEC SA – ETA SA Consortium Claims: 1,200 million pesos Result: The Bucaramanga Aqueduct was condemned for 800 million pesos.
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND PUBLIC CREDIT vs. CAPITAL DISTRICT OF SANTAFÉ DE BOGOTÁ (1996)
Representatives of the Capital District of Bogotá. Claims: 50 billion pesos Result: Conciliation for 20 billion pesos.
FIDUCIARIA CENTRAL SA vs. IDU URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (1995)
IDU representatives. Claims: 31 billion pesos. Result: The IDU was sentenced for 16 billion pesos.
CIVICON SA vs. INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF BOLÍVAR EDURBE (1995)
EDURBE representatives. Claims: 4 billion pesos Result: Withdrawal after the claim was answered.
ICA SYMSA CONSORTIUM vs. EAAB (1994)
Representatives of the EAAB Claims: One billion pesos. Result: Conciliation for 274 million pesos.
SEDIC vs. BETANIA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT (1993)
Representatives of the Betania Hydroelectric Power Plant. Claims: 7 billion pesos. Result: The Betania Hydroelectric Power Plant was absolved of all claims.
IMPREGILO ESTRUCO CONSORTIUM vs. EAAB (1992)
EAAB representatives Claims: 14 billion. Result: EEB was absolved of all claims.
IMPREGILO ESTRUCO CONSORTIUM vs. EAAB (1992)
EAAB representatives Claims: 19 billion pesos. Result: EAAB was sentenced for 3 billion pesos.
VIANINI ENTRECANALES Consortium vs. BSE (1991)
EEB representatives Claims: 21 billion pesos. Result: Withdrawal after the claim was answered.
VIANINI ENTRECANALES Consortium vs. BSE (1990)
EEB representatives Claims: 14 billion pesos. Result: EEB was absolved of all claims.
CONSTRUCTORA BRUGUES vs. BSE (1988)
EEB representatives Claims: 500 million pesos. Result: EEB was ordered to pay 20 million pesos.
CONSTRUCTORA BRUGUES vs. BSE (1988)
EEB representatives Claims: 19 billion pesos Result: EAAB was sentenced for 3 billion pesos.