An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.
The Luxembourg Court of Appeal grants recognition with respect to the award. The Court finds that Kazakhstan has failed to prove the existence of any fraud. This decision is binding and enforceable as a matter of Luxembourg law notwithstanding any further appeals.
The Stati Parties file a motion for sanctions and contempt before the federal district court in Washington, D.C. given Kazakhstan’s repeated breaches of its discovery obligations stemming from previous U.S. court orders in the local award enforcement proceedings.
This matter is currently stayed pending Kazakhstan’s compliance with its discovery obligations.
A District Court in Stockholm dismisses Kazakhstan’s and NBK’s separate appeals against various attachment orders made by the Swedish bailiff concerning Kazakh state property in Sweden.
The assets in question represent proceeds of shareholdings and related economic rights in various Swedish listed companies owned by Kazakhstan as part of the savings portfolio of the National Fund. These proceeds are currently blocked in the Swedish bailiff’s escrow account in the sum of SEK 790,284,526 (approximately US$ 53 million) pending final resolution of the Swedish award enforcement proceedings before the Swedish Supreme Court.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeals upholds the US$ 5.2 billion share freeze of Kazakhstan’s stake in the Kashagan oil field held via Samruk-Kazyna.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirms the previous court ruling from March 23, 2018 that the award is valid and enforceable as a binding U.S. judgment. The ruling states that: “We find that it was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to deny Kazakhstan’s motion because the District Court based its ruling on multiple valid grounds. We further agree with the District Court that Kazakhstan improperly presented new facts in its motion for reconsideration that it had not introduced in its original motion to supplement.”
As a result of this ruling, any non-state immune Kazakh state assets on U.S. soil become amenable to attachment and foreclosure by the Stati Parties.
The federal district court in Washington, D.C. dismisses Kazakhstan’s complaint against the Stati Parties filed pursuant to the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by describing this lawsuit as “ill-advised” and “an improper use of the auspices of this Court to revive and prolong a dispute that is over”.