French
French
-Partner & FCIArb
Carlos is a Partner at Concepción Global PLLC, a boutique international disputes law firm with offices in Miami and Madrid. He serves as an independent arbitrator and an advocate and counselor for select clients. With more than 35 years of experience at the intersection of common and civil law jurisdictions, Carlos focuses on institutional proceedings involving complex international commercial disputes and investment-treaty matters administered by ICSID. He has held leadership roles at some of the largest firms in the world before establishing his own practice.
ICSID Counsel for a U.S. Construction company in a ICSID dispute involving the violation of various investment treaties between Panama and the United States.
ICC Counsel for a US Construction Company in an ICC matter seated in Panama regarding Respondent’s failure to pay the Petitioner for services and expenses incurred in the development of various infrastructure projects.
ENFORCEMENT Counsel for Petitioner in the Confirmation and Enforcement of an International Arbitration Award for USD$35MM under the New York and Panama Conventions.
ICC Co-Arbitrator in an ICC matter regarding a Distribution/Supply Agreement between parties from the US and Costa Rica.
Arbitrator in a ICSID matter between an investor from Venezuela and Respondent State Peru.
ICDR Sole Arbitrator in a ICDR dispute among investors in a Hotel and Casino in the Dominican Republic.
ICDR Sole Arbitrator in a ICDR case involving a software licensing dispute between a distributor in El Salvador and US Company.
CPR Arbitrator in a CPR case involving allegations of financial statement fraud in a dispute between a major accounting firm and bankruptcy trustee.
SIAC Sole Arbitrator in a SIAC dispute between an international law firm and its former European client.
ICC Arbitrator in an ICC dispute between telecommunication companies in Spain and El Salvador.
ICDR Sole Arbitrator in an ICDR dispute between Puerto Rico companies regarding media and marketing services.
ICC Counsel for a German manufacturing company in an ICC arbitration relating to a claim filed by a distributor in Massachusetts alleging various breaches of a distribution agreement.
UNCITRAL Counsel in a UNCITRAL multi-party, multi-jurisdictional (administered by ICDR) for an Omani bank from Portugal, Argentina, and Curacao who were investors in several Hotels owned by joint ventures in Mexico.
US SUPREME COURT Counsel for Amici in a US Supreme Court case in which SCOTUS considered whether the common law doctrine of Equitable Estoppel is available to “non-signatories” of an international arbitration agreement who seek to compel arbitration under the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
ICC Counsel for Claimant in an ICC shareholder dispute in Bogota regarding a pharmaceutical company and related Award confirmation proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.
ICC Counsel for petitioner in an ICC dispute between the two controlling shareholders of a multi-level vitamin and herbal supplement company doing business in Mexico and the United States.
28 USC 1782 Counsel for Petitioner in a Discovery dispute under 28 USC 1782 relating to the investment in a joint stock company registered under the laws of Russia.
FL SUPREME COURT Counsel for Amici in a Florida Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether an arbitration clause must expressly say that the arbitrators have the power to determine arbitrability or whether it is enough to incorporate the AAA rules into the clause.
ICC Counsel for Respondent in an ICC dispute between a UK company and an Israeli company related to media and entertainment services.
ICC Counsel for Respondent in an ICC case regarding a dispute between a Florida distributor and a Beijing manufacturer of die-cast products.
ICDR Counsel for Petitioner in an ICDR dispute involving the financing of durable medical equipment products in Latin America.
AD HOC Counsel for a group of Canadian developers and investors in a telecoms venture in the Dominican Republic.
LITIGATION Counsel for a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors of a Puerto Rico Bank in a derivative action in the District Court for Puerto Rico with related proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.
INVESTIGATION Counsel for a Central American government agency in the investigation of claims arising from the sale and settlement of various viatical insurance policies.
FDIC Counsel, in many cases, for the Professional Liability Unit of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the investigation and subsequent litigation against various officers, directors and outside accounting firms in connection with the failure of many savings and loans and national banks. All proceedings were in various U.S. District Courts pursuant to the FDIC’s receivership powers under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA).
ICDR Sole Arbitrator in an ICDR dispute between Puerto Rico companies regarding media and marketing services.
ICC Counsel for a German manufacturing company in an ICC arbitration relating to a claim filed by a distributor in Massachusetts alleging various breaches of a distribution agreement.
UNCITRAL Counsel in a UNCITRAL multi-party, multi-jurisdictional (administered by ICDR) for an Omani bank from Portugal, Argentina, and Curacao who were investors in several Hotels owned by joint ventures in Mexico.
ICC Counsel for Claimant in an ICC shareholder dispute in Bogota regarding a pharmaceutical company and related Award confirmation proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.
Miami International Arbitration Society, September 26, 2023
Daily Business Review, August 2022
CPR Institute, March 2021
Law360, May 2021
Association of Corporate Counsel, Miami, FL, March 2019
Presentation on Construction and Infrastructure Disputes, April 2019
Presenter, New York City, September 2018
Cross Border EU/US Challenges. Keynote Panel: Innovation & Damages, April 2018
Speaker: Defenses to Award Confirmation under New York Convention, October 2017
Bogota, Colombia, August 2016
Law360, September 2015
Law360, July 2014
In most cases, a Tribunal Secretary will add value to the Parties and the Arbitrators. Their services usually reduce the overall cost of the proceedings and aids the tribunal in task-management. In determining whether a Tribunal Secretary would be beneficial in a particular case, I will consider a variety of factors including the complexity and nature of the case, the scope of the pleadings, and the extent of the anticipated evidence.
I will never appoint a Tribunal Secretary without the prior consent and approval of the Parties. Finally, I would insist that the Tribunal Secretary observe the same level of impartiality and independence as the Arbitrators.
Although I approach cases from the perspective that the proceedings “belong to the Parties”, I am well aware of the case management differences between the civil law and common law traditions. In my experience, an Arbitrator must be flexible and select the procedures and techniques from these different legal traditions in a manner that is best suited to the circumstances of each case.
The primary reason Parties select arbitration is to resolve their disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Mediation can be an integral part of the arbitration process. If the Parties desire, I will facilitate their interest in reaching an early resolution of the dispute. However, I will always avoid any conduct that may question my independence and impartiality, or which may be contrary to the Parties’ agreement.
I favor addressing dispositive issues early in a case and, as may be appropriate, throughout the proceedings. Parties should not have to engage in extensive and costly proceedings on issues that are narrow and readily resolvable. If the Parties wish to present dispositive motions, I will schedule a briefing period on dispositive motions that provides the Parties with ample opportunity to submit their respective arguments.
I will typically apply the IBA rules. If appropriate, I may also apply these rules against the wishes of a particular party.
Yes, I encourage the submission of skeleton arguments to assist the tribunal in focusing on the main facts and issues. In a complex case, skeleton arguments may benefit the tribunal by outlining the arguments and relevant evidence.
I prefer limited and focused discovery that follows a Redfern Schedule. Unless the controlling Arbitration agreement compels me to do so, I will rarely-if ever, allow the Parties to pursue “American Style” discovery.
With full disclosure, I prefer to consult with the party that appointed me regarding the selection of the Chair and may suggest potential chairs if requested by the party.
Yes, I encourage the Parties to interview the potential Chairs that I may have identified. This is consistent with the Parties’ obligation to maintain an active role in all stages of the proceeding, especially in the appointment process.
I prefer to address and resolve this sensitive issue immediately when it allegedly occurs.
I will consider the allocation of costs in any final award based on the merits of the claims and defenses presented. This assumes the Parties’ agreement or applicable rules do not provide for an alternative measure or standard for the allocation of costs.
I will typically apply the IBA rules. If appropriate, I may also apply these rules against the wishes of a particular party.
Although I am trained in the common law tradition, many of my international commercial arbitration matters have either been “seated” in a non-US city or have involved the laws of a country other than the USA. As a result of my experience in these matters, and especially in Investor-State disputes, my “procedural style” is a mix between the common law Socratic approach and the civil law “inquisitorial” approach to case management. I do clearly prefer, however, to “front load’ the evidence in the civil tradition and minimize the use of “rebuttal” pleadings and evidence. In the end, my “style” is case dependent and will always be driven by the overarching need for efficiency and due process.
Construction, financial services, technology, and international supply chain disputes.
Occasionally, Carlos will represent either the Claimant or the Respondent, pro bono, in “Return Petitions” commenced under The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductions. The Convention provides a mechanism for the repatriation of children who have been removed from their habitual residence in breach of the custodial rights of one of the children’s parents.
Carlos is a member of numerous organizations and attend many conferences and events. He does not maintain records of fellow members, speakers, or participants, nor does he monitor contact lists on LinkedIn and similar sites. Tangential connections in such contexts should not be considered to be relationships that might affect impartiality or independence. (Canon II, Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, American Bar Association (2004); General Standard 2, International Bar Association Guidelines for Conflicts of Interest in Commercial Arbitration (2014)).
He typically request all parties in a matter for which he is proposed as an arbitrator or neutral to disclose promptly any facts or circumstances considered relevant to his impartiality or independence.
Phone: +1.305.444.6669
WHAT LEADING AUTHORITIES SAY
AWARDS & RECOGNITION
Whether you are seeking an arbitrator appointment or counsel representation, we welcome your inquiry. All requests are handled with strict confidentiality and are subject to a formal conflicts review.
English English 
Spanish
French
Portuguese