Managing Director

Almir Smajlovic

Managing Director – Fortis Disputes & Consulting, LLC

Professional Experience

Almir Smajlovic’s focus is on U.S. litigation and international commercial and investment treaty arbitration. In addition to ten years of industry experience, for the last fourteen years, he has assisted clients in the areas of damages quantum and other financial, economic, forensic, and accounting-related analyses in the context of disputes, valuations, audits, and M&A transactions.

Mr. Smajlovic has led engagements and assessed damages in international arbitration matters held under the auspices of various arbitral forums including ICSID, ICDR, LCIA, SCC, ICC, PCA, AAA, and SIAC, among others. Mr. Smajlovic was honored to be named by Who’s Who Legal as an “Arbitration 2024 Expert Witness”.

Mr. Smajlovic specializes in valuation methodologies including the income, market, asset-based, and hybrid-based approaches. His experience spans a wide variety of industries and asset types including financial services, real estate, oil and gas, midstream, renewables, conventional, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, ferroalloy/silica manganese plants, coal mining, telecommunications, project finance, gold trading and various project finance and LBO-type investments.

Prior to joining Fortis Disputes & Consulting LLC, Mr. Smajlovic held the Managing Director position with Secretariat Advisors LLC. He also held positions in the Disputes and Investigations practice of Alvarez & Marsal, Financial Economics practice of CRA International, where he focused on damages quantum in international arbitration, and in the Assurance practice of PwC, where he provided audit-related services for regulated and unregulated power generators, lessors of power plants, upstream oil and gas, drilling services, chemical manufacturing, transportation, and banking industry clients. In this role, Mr. Smajlovic also gained extensive experience in auditing and valuation of various spot and long-term supply contracts, as well as in the valuation of fixed income and financial derivative contracts.

Prior to joining PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mr. Smajlovic spent almost a decade working for KBR in the Middle East and Eastern Europe in quality assurance and quality control, various operational and supply chain roles.

Representative Engagements

Dispute Advisory

• ICSID Arbitration Dispute Involving Minority Western-European Shareholder in Central Eastern European Coal Power Plant and Mine (Claimant): The Claimant initiated a dispute against a European state under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), alleging that actions taken by the state breached several ECT provisions, including those related to unlawful expropriation and the denial of fair and equitable treatment (FET). These actions allegedly resulted in the expropriation of the Claimant’s minority stake in a local mining company. My role involves calculating the lost profits and determining the value of the expropriated business. The case is ongoing.
• ICSID Arbitration Dispute Involving Multiple Foreign Investors With an Investment in Transportation Sector and a Balkan State (Claimants): Currently advising multiple claimants on the valuation of their expropriated transportation business. The case has a report deadline set for mid-May 2025.
• LCIA Arbitration – Dispute Involving Foreign Investor in the South Adriatic Region (Claimant): The Claimant, a foreign investor, initiated a commercial arbitration under the LCIA Rules concerning alleged breaches by a Balkan state of a 90-year concession agreement. The investor had secured multiple contracts with a well-known international hotel brand, including the development of a 5-star hotel and hundreds of residential units (apartments and villas). The dispute centers on the State’s alleged interference with the project and breach of its concession obligations. The case is currently ongoing.
• ICSID Arbitration – U.S. Investors vs. Eastern European State (Claimant): Advising Swiss counsel on claims for damages arising from alleged breaches of a long-term agreement related to the domain name business. The case is currently bifurcated.
• Currently advising a Japanese manufacturer on alleged damages related to the production and sale of three large machines to a commercial buyer in a Balkan state (Respondent). The case is ongoing.
• Potential ICSID Arbitration Dispute Between Eastern European O&G Firm and an Eastern European State (Claimant): Advising on the calculation of damages arising from levies imposed by the State on a major refinery under the EU’s Solidarity Contribution. The case is currently on hold.
• ICSID Arbitration Dispute Between Cypriot Investor and the Balkan State (Claimant): Advised the claimant on the valuation of an investment portfolio, including financial services, various banking instruments, real estate developments in the state’s capital city, and other commercial investments, which were allegedly impaired by actions of the sovereign state. The case was resolved in favor of the Claimant.
• ICSID Arbitration Dispute Between German Investor and the Balkan State (Claimant): Advised the claimant on the valuation of a real estate investment portfolio, including four villas, retirement homes, Class A office spaces, and prime retail spaces in the capital city of the Balkan State. Valuation methods employed included the income approach, cost approach, and sales comparison approach. The case was discontinued.
• ICC Arbitration Dispute Between Two Oil and Gas Companies and the Balkan State (Claimant). Advised the claimants in a post-M&A dispute involving the financial interpretation of representations and warranties. This included quantifying the monetary impact of various decisions made by the Board of the acquired company. The case was resolved in favor of the Claimant.
• ICSID Arbitration involving Eastern-European majority shareholder of financial institution vs. a Sovereign Eastern-European State (Claimant): Calculated the value of the Claimant’s investment in a local bank, which was allegedly expropriated by the sovereign state. The analysis focused on the classification of “a large exposure” and the cross-collateralization of a private bond purchase. The case was settled before the hearing.