An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.
Belgian Court Grants Recognition of the Award
The Brussels Court of First Instance grants recognition with respect to the award, dismissing all of Kazakhstan’s challenges to the award (including based on the fraud allegations).
Search Our Library
Lawyers for Argentem Creek Partners file a motion to dismiss Kazakhstan’s complaint in New York Supreme Court
Lawyers for Argentem Creek Partners and its CEO Daniel Chapman filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought by Kazakhstan in its Third Amended Complaint in the Supreme Court of New York. The motion argues that New York law provides the Court with multiple, independent grounds to dismiss Kazakhstan’s frivolous lawsuit with prejudice.
A federal judge in New York on February 10 granted the Argentem parties motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff Outrider thereby dismissing them from Kazakhstan’s vexatious litigation against U.S. investors. The Court also granted the motion by Kazakhstan to remand the case to New York State Court where Argentem’s motion to dismiss Kazakhstan’s claims will be decided.
The Supreme Court of Italy rejected an appeal brought by the Republic of Kazakhstan against recognition of the $544 million “Tristangate” Award on the grounds that it was procured by ‘fraud’. The Supreme Court of Italy upheld the earlier judgment of the Rome Court of Appeal handed down in February 2019.
The Swedish Supreme Court upheld a $90 million freeze on Kazakhstan National Fund’s assets in Sweden. The court ruled that the seized assets representing part of Kazakh National Fund are not protected by sovereign immunity as a matter of international and Swedish law. The Swedish Supreme Court remanded the case to the Svea Court of Appeal for further consideration with respect to other outstanding questions.
The Brussels Court of Appeal issued a decision upholding the challenge brought by Kazakhstan against the enforcement of the $545 million Energy Charter Treaty Award in Belgium. The ruling is limited to the Belgian jurisdiction only and did not affect the validity of the award in Sweden.