Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Yukos Capital V. Rosneft Notes

BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Yukos Capital V. Rosneft document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

YUKOS CAPITAL V. ROSNEFT FACTS A claimant, incorporated in Luxembourg but originally part of a Russian group, obtains a Russian arbitration award under a Russian contract against a Russian company, part of a Russian resources group now within majority Russian state ownership and control. At the time when the contract between the original parties was entered into, both parties had been members of the same Russian group, then in private hands. By the time the award is issued, however, the defendant company, to which the liability has passed by a process of universal company succession, is within Russian state control, while the claimant company has survived in private hands outside the state takeover. It is now said by the defendant company (but had not been said at the arbitration) that the contract under which the award had been made was part of an unlawful tax scheme operated by the original parties to the contract when they were associated companies within a single group. Following the making of the arbitration award, there are proceedings in the Russian courts which lead to the setting aside of the award. The claimant contends that those judicial proceedings are a travesty of justice but typical of the campaign of state interference which has been waged by the Russian state. The claimant seeks to enforce the award, despite its having been set aside by the courts of the country where it was made, in another foreign nation, namely The Netherlands, pursuant to the New York Convention. The Dutch court at first instance refuses enforcement, on the ground that the award has been set aside in Russia; but on appeal in the Amsterdam court of appeal the award is recognised for enforcement, while the Russian court's decision setting aside the award is refused recognition. The refusal of recognition is on the ground that it can be inferred, from the general nature of the subservience of the Russian courts to state influence in matters of state importance, that the decision of the Russian court in setting aside the award was "partial and dependent", in other words was dictated by bias or intimidation. Meanwhile the claimant proceeds to England, where it also seeks to enforce the award and post-award interest, both pursuant to the New York Convention and at common law. Enforcement proceedings are therefore commenced in the commercial court in London. QUESTION

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.

More Conflict Of Laws Bcl Samples