[ad_1]
RIA Novosti and other pro-Kremlin media are trying to present the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as a victory for the Russian side and the end of a dispute that has been dragging on since 2005. In reality, this is nothing more than an intermediate technical solution, on which both sides of the process insisted. RBK informs:
“The US Court of Appeal dismissed the case of ex-Yukos shareholders against Russia.
The court was asked about this by the former shareholders of the company themselves. They previously explained that they had agreed with the other party to dismiss the case and determined the procedure for paying the costs. During the proceedings, they tried to collect $ 50 billion from Russia. <...>
The petition in question was submitted by the ex-shareholders of YUKOS on November 18. In it, they informed the court that they had agreed with the other side of the case to terminate the case and determined the procedure for paying the costs.
In the same petition, the former shareholders asked the Court of Appeal to reject their earlier appeal, filed in late 2020. Then in it, they asked the court to overturn the decision of the District of Columbia court, which suspended the proceedings in their case at the request of Moscow. The corresponding decision was made by the District of Columbia court in November 2020.
Then the judge ordered to suspend the consideration of the case until November 18, 2022, until the process in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, which was going on in parallel, is completed. “
Yukos shareholders asked a US court to reject their own appeal in connection with the decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, which on November 5 returned the claim of Yukos shareholders to Russia for a new examination by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Prior to this, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the shareholders, but the Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the Russian side, came to the conclusion that the lower court erroneously did not consider the merits of one of her allegations – about the alleged fraud of the plaintiffs in the framework of the arbitration procedure. Otherwise, the Supreme Court upheld the shareholders ‘position, but due to procedural reasons, there is currently no final decision of the Dutch court on the shareholders’ claim.
The shareholders’ claim in the United States was directly related to the decision of the Dutch court; the plaintiffs sought recognition of the award in their favor. Russian Agency for Legal and Judicial Information (RAPSI) explains:
“Former Yukos shareholders – Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd. and Veteran Petroleum Ltd. – refused to appeal against the ruling of the US court, according to which the procedural actions for the recognition of an arbitral award for $ 50 billion in their favor were suspended.
A petition was filed with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in mid-November and granted on Wednesday.
The decision of the former Yukos shareholders to refuse to further appeal against the decision on recognition and enforcement in the United States of the arbitral award followed after the Supreme Court (SC) of the Netherlands drew attention to possible fraud on the part of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd. and Veteran Petroleum Ltd. in the course of proceedings in international arbitration.
In this regard, the Dutch Supreme Court referred the case to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for a reassessment on this point. Accordingly, the ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision that Russia paid about $ 50 billion to the former shareholders of Yukos, was annulled.
It is expected that the consideration of the case in the Amsterdam Court of Appeal will begin in mid-February 2022 with a speech by the former shareholders of Yukos. “
It is important to understand that the US closed the case not at the shareholders’ claim against Russia, but at their request to cancel the suspension of procedural actions. The case to recover more than $ 50 billion from Russia remains suspended pending a new decision by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.
[ad_2]
Source link
