An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.
Amsterdam District Court denies National Bank of Kazakhstan claim for damages
The Amsterdam District Court denied a $118 million damages claim brought by the National Bank of Kazakhstan (NBK) against the Stati Parties.
NBK claimed it had suffered severe losses after rulings in a Dutch court and a Belgian court in 2017 led to the attachment of sovereign assets held by BNY Mellon worth $22.6 billion.
The court dismissed the claim in its entirety, arguing that “in this case there is no question of an unlawful attachment leading to risk liability,” and that “it cannot be held that the Stati parties abused their powers”. It also ordered NBK to cover the Statis’ legal costs.
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.