Library
An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.
Brussels Court of Appeal rejects Kazakhstan’s challenge to $530 million attachment order
The Brussels Court of Appeal has rejected Kazakhstan’s challenge to a $530 million attachment of assets held via its National Fund with BNY Mellon in Brussels.
The asset attachment, originally at a value of $22.6 billion, is an enforcement measure against Kazakhstan’s continued failure to pay more than $500 million awarded to the Stati Parties by a Swedish arbitral tribunal in 2013. The Stati Parties later agreed to limit the attachment to $530 million, reflecting the approximate value of the Energy Charter Award at the time. The attachment value has since grown with interest to over $540 million.
Search Our Library
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.