Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Hague: Russia owes Yukos shareholders $50Billion

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:47 pm    Post subject: The Hague: Russia owes Yukos shareholders $50Billion Reply with quote

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/336123279/international-court-rules-against-russia-in-50-billion-decision

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/28/hague-court-russia-did-steal-yukos-and-must-pay-50-billion-damages/

Quote:
In the Final Awards, the arbitral tribunals unanimously held that the Russian Federation had taken measures with the effect equivalent to an expropriation of Claimants’ investments in Yukos and thus had breached Article 13(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty. As a result, the Russian Federation was ordered to pay damages to compensate Claimants. At the same time, the arbitral tribunals found some contributory fault on behalf of Claimants, leading them to reduce the amount of damages awarded.


So, the Russian gov't is at fault, but so were some of Yukos's shareholders.

Quote:
Under that Energy Charter Treaty the Russian Government, the State, has every right to nationalise or otherwise takeover the assets, licences or property of anyone or any company that it so wishes to deal with in that manner. Governments do have sovereignty after all. However, under that same treaty it has also promised that it would properly compensate investors if that’s what they decide they want to do. Russia did not compensate Yukos shareholders therefore the government is in the wrong here. Yukos itself, plus some of the actions of the shareholders, were not entirely kosher either (it’s not exactly a surprise to anyone at all that in the Yeltsin years there was a certain amount of tax dodging going on in Russia) therefore they don’t get the full amount of damages claimed, $100 billion, but that lower award of $50 billion.


That's going to be . . . a difficult amount to collect in full.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I note that not a single story lists who the creditors are.

Soros & Rothschild.

Some western kangaroo court says Russia owes Soros & Rothschild (among others) 50b.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b01cfb72-1669-11e4-8210-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz38qwjAITc

Quote:
One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine. “There is a war coming in Europe,” he said. “Do you really think this matters?”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plain Meaning



Joined: 18 Oct 2014

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arbitration awards on multi-billion claims against Russia quashed

Quote:
The Hague District Court has quashed six arbitration awards (three interim awards and three final awards) of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In the final awards, the Russian Federation was ordered to pay damages amounting to 50 billion US dollars to Yukos Universal Limited, Hulley Enterprises Limited and Veteran Petroleum Limited. The three parties had been shareholders of the bankrupted Russian oil company Yukos. With the arbitration awards quashed, the Russian Federation is no longer liable for paying compensation to these parties.

The cases concerned international investment arbitration proceedings brought before the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Since the arbitrations were conducted in The Hague, the District Court of The Hague is competent to rule on the requested reversal of the arbitration awards.

Explanation of ruling: Permanent Court of Arbitration not competent

The Hague District Court has reversed the awards of the international arbitrators on the grounds that they lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the cases concerning international investment arbitrations based on the ECT. The Hague District Court included in its assessment the fact that the Russian Federation had signed the ECT, but never ratified it.

The Russian parliament had rejected the legislative proposal for the ratification of the ECT. Against this backdrop, four provisions of the ECT play an important role.

Article 26 covers the settlement of disputes between a foreign investor and a contracting party to the ECT.
Article 39 stipulates that the treaty must be ratified by the signatories.
Article 44 specifies that the treaty’s entry into force is conditional on the ratification by a certain number of states.
Article 45 (in the Dutch translation) determines that each signatory agrees to the provisional application pending its entry into force for said signatory, “to the extent that such provisional application is not inconsistent with its constitution, laws or regulations”.

The court finds that the wording of Article 45 necessitates an examination whether or not the provision in each separate article of the ECT is contrary to the constitution or other legislation of the state involved. This interpretation of Article 45 is different from the reading of the arbitrators.

Arbitration option contrary to Russian law

The court concluded that the option of arbitration under Article 26 ECT for disputes such as the ones in these proceedings are contrary to written Russian law. In the arbitral proceedings, the investors mainly opposed the consequences of the tax measures the Russian state had imposed on Yukos. They believed that these measures essentially resulted in an expropriation of their shares without compensation.

The court finds that this dispute warrants a judicial assessment of public-law actions. The court’s examination of Russian legislation resulted in the finding that a legal provision is required for subjecting the Russian state to arbitration in such disputes; one which requires the approval (ratification) of the Russian parliament. Such provision does not exist, neither in a general sense nor in a specific sense for this case, as the Russian legislature has not ratified the ECT.

This means that the arbitral clause of Article 26 ECT does not apply through the provisional application of the treaty. The court finds that the arbitrators did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case and were therefore wrong to declare themselves competent.


This man argued the successful appeal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2016 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International