An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.
Lawyers acting for Argentem Creek Partners filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to dismiss Kazakhstan’s suit, as well as a separate motion to compel Outrider to submit its claims to arbitration.
Kazakhstan’s claims are identical to issues raised in previous proceedings, the motion to dismiss argues, noting that these were already litigated and decided in other courts. The motion to compel arbitration is based on the grounds that the Sharing Agreement signed between Tristan’s noteholders in 2012 mandates the use of arbitration to resolve differences rather than filing of complaints in the American courts and that all noteholders agree to arbitrate when they purchase notes. Outrider, who decided to join Kazakhstan earlier this year in backing the fictional fraud claims, is a signatory to the Sharing Agreement.
In a letter, lawyers acting for Argentem Creek Partners request dismissal of Kazakhstan’s civil complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the firm and its CEO. They argue that the case is part of Kazakhstan’s continuing attempts to re-litigate the SCC award despite the rejection of its fraud allegations by courts around the world, including the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Argentem Creek Partners file a notice to transfer Kazakhstan’s complaint against the firm and its CEO to the Southern District Court of New York on the grounds that a U.S. federal court is better suited to provide judgment.
A Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declines a bid to halt Kazakhstan’s litigation initiated in New York against Argentem Creek and its CEO last year, finding that a court in New York may be better positioned to determine whether Kazakhstan’s claims are precluded.
The Judge previously enforced the arbitral award in 2018 and confirmed again that Kazakhstan is still subject to this valid and binding arbitration award in the United States, and that Kazakhstan’s previous complaint alleging fraud and RICO violations had failed even to state claim, and so had been dismissed.
The Court Of Cassation of Luxembourg concludes that the lower court incorrectly examined evidence in the award enforcement proceedings, and decides that the case should be re-heard by a different panel of judges at the Luxembourg Court of Appeal. The attachments of Kazakhstan’s assets in Luxembourg remain in place.