|
|
|
Telefónica del Perú S.A.A. |
| - |
We represented and defended Telefónica del Perú S.A.A. in several contentious-administrative proceedings, including some actions related to the legality of several coercive execution proceedings brought by the Municipality of Ferreñafe (Lambayeque department), to collect fines imposed upon Telefónica del Perú S.A.A. for its failure to remove a telecommunications antenna from the locality of Cercado de Ferreñafe. (2007)
|
| - |
We acted as legal counsel for Telefónica del Perú S.A.A. in the action for unconstitutionality brought against Law Nº 26285 and the Concession Stability Agreement entered into between Compañía Peruana de Teléfonos, currently Telefónica del Perú S.A.A., and the Peruvian State. The complaint was filed by 64 members of Congress, who called into question the public telephony concession agreements signed by the State with Telefónica. (2004)
|
| |
|
Tecnológica de Alimentos S.A. (TASA) |
|
We represented and defended Tecnológica de Alimentos S.A.(TASA) in the contentious-administrative proceeding that it brought against the Ministry of Production to recover the operating permit that it had previously obtained for operating a fishmeal processing plant that it had built at the Chicama port, Rázuri district, Ascope province, La Libertad department. (2007) |
|
|
|
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC) |
|
We represented and defended Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC) in the action for constitutional protection that it brought against the Peruvian Engineers’ Association because it refused to accept as members of the association some alumni of UPC’s School of Engineering who had some courses taken in higher education centers recognized by UPC. (2007) |
|
|
|
Petroleos del Perú S.A. (Petroperu) |
|
We represented and defended Petróleos del Perú S.A. (Petroperu) in the proceeding for the annulment of an Arbitration Award that it brought against a resolution that ordered it to pay an indemnity for damages for S/. 14,592,874.27 for an alleged undue termination of a contract. (2006) |
|
|
|
Citibank del Perú S.A. |
|
We represented and defended Citibank del Perú S.A. in the jurisdiction proceeding brought by the Central Reserve Bank of Peru (BCR) against the Superintendency of Banking and Insurance (SBS). This proceeding revolved around a conflict of jurisdiction between both entities and the eventual voidance of a resolution whereby SBS authorized Citibank N.A. to transform its Peruvian branch into a national bank. This proceeding was brought with the Constitutional Court, which acknowledged that the bank was legitimately authorized to act in such capacity. (2006) |
|
|
|
Depósitos Químicos Mineros S.A. |
|
We represented and defended Depósitos Químicos Mineros S.A. in the action for constitutional protection and in the contentious-administrative proceeding brought against it and against the Provincial Municipality of Callao by a group of neighbors of the Bulk Liquid Products Storage Terminal that the company had built in Callao. |
|
|
|
Pluspetrol Perú Corporation S.A. |
|
We represented and defended Pluspetrol Perú Corporation S.A. in the action for unconstitutionality brought by the Biologists’ Association and the Peruvian Architects’ Association against Municipal Ordinance N° 006-2002-MPP, issued by the Provincial Municipality of Pisco, approving the change of use of a medium-density area to density area 14 (contaminating heavy industry) regarding a plot of land located between Km. 13.4 and 15 of the Pisco-Paracas road (included within the Paracas National Reserve buffer zone). (2004) |
|
|
|
Trans American Airlines S.A. (Taca Perú) |
|
We represented and defended Trans American Airlines S.A. (Taca Perú) in the proceeding for constitutional compliance that it brought against the General Civil Aviation Bureau of the Ministry of Transport and Communications to obtain definitive permits for flying the Brazil, Argentina and Mexico routes, among others. (2002) |
|
|
|
British American Tobacco (BTA) |
|
We represented and defended British American Tobacco (BTA) in the action for constitutional protection that it brought to prevent the State from infringing its constitutional rights to private initiative, freedom of enterprise, equality of rights before the law, and principle of legality regarding tax matters. We managed to have the Constitutional Court declare the non-application of Supreme Decree Nº158-99-EF. (2001) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
