Court decision invalidating yukos capital

Rated 4.79/5 based on 645 customer reviews

which raises the issue of when a waiver of a contractual right to arbitrate will be held as binding and irrevocable.

Specifically, the Court will assess whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, for a waiver to be binding and irrevocable it is necessary for the non-waiving party to establish prejudice as a result of the opposing party waiving its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation. The Supreme Court of New York has held that parties arbitrating anywhere in the world may apply to attach assets held in New York State, even if the case has no connection to the US.

Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and Turkish translations are also currently under review, and more language versions will be made available before the formal launch of the guidelines later this year. Ros Invest purchased the shares at a time when their value had diminished significantly because of Russia’s actions against Yukos, including auctioning off of Yukos’ common shares in its principal production facilities to a State-owned company.

Sojitz sought to attach US million of Prithvi's assets located in New York, as security pending an arbitration award.The award has attracted criticism for its interest calculation because it relies on the interest rate applicable under the IPPA for lawful expropriations notwithstanding the tribunal’s conclusion that Russia’s conduct constituted an unlawful expropriation.The tribunal rejected claimant’s request for compounding of accrued interest, basing its decision on the “speculative” nature of Ros Invest’s investment instead of Russia’s unlawful actions. Despite this conclusion, the tribunal declined to award any damages to the investor on the theory that he failed to properly substantiate the quantum. Mohammad Al-Bahloul arose out of Tajikistan’s alleged failure to grant oil and gas exploration licenses to his company for four different Tajik sites in 2001 in spite of contractual undertakings to do so.The Court found that whilst California state law regards contractual clauses prohibiting class actions (whether in arbitration or litigation) as unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, that state rule was pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act In a narrow majority decision, the Court held that the clause was effective.It has been announced that the new Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance will come into effect on 1 June 2011.

Leave a Reply