Library

An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.

U.S. Appellate Court Confirms the Award

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.

Download

Search Our Library

The Award is Upheld by a Swedish Appellate Court

Date: December 9, 2016
Jurisdiction: Sweden
Status: Closed
In favour of: Tristan Oil

The Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden upholds the award in full by dismissing all of the challenges (including based on the fraud allegations) brought by Kazakhstan against the award and refuses the right to appeal its judgment to the Swedish Supreme Court.

Download

The Stati Parties Secure an Arbitral Award Requiring Kazakhstan to Pay Compensation of More Than US$ 500 million

Date: December 19, 2013
Jurisdiction: Sweden
Status: Closed
In favour of: Tristan Oil

The Tribunal holds that Kazakhstan has violated its obligations under the ECT and awards the Stati Parties damages of approximately US$ 500 million, plus costs and interest.

In its 414-page reasoned award the Tribunal holds that:

“[Kazakhstan’s] measures, seen cumulatively in context to each other and compared with the treatment of the Claimants’ investments before the Order of the President of the Republic [Nursultan Nazabayev] on 14/16 October 2008, constituted a string of measures of coordinated harassment by various institutions of [Kazakhstan]. These measures must be considered as a breach of the obligation to treat investors fairly and equitably, as required by Art 10(1) ECT”.

Download