London High Court of Justice, 11 May 2018, Statis v. The Republic of Kazakhstan, no. CL-2014-000070

An arbitration award dated 19 December 2013 has been made in favour of Statis against Kazakhstan in an international investment arbitration seated in Sweden. Statis requested the permission to enforce the award before the Courts of England and Wales. On 28 February 2014, Statis got the permission to enforce the award. The state of Kazakhstan [...]

United State District Court, District of Columbia, 23 March 2018, Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group, S.A., Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd., v. The Republic of Kazakhstan, no. 14-1638 (ABJ)

On 23 March 2018, the District Court denied Kazakhstan’s motion for reconsideration and confirmed the 500 million dollars award under the Energy Charter Treaty in favor of the Moldavian investors regarding oil use rights in Kazakhstan. When the investors sought enforcement in the United States, Kazakhstan opposed it on the grounds of fraud alleging that [...]

Paris Court of Appeals, 16 January 2018, MK Group v. Onix and Société Financial Initiative, no. 15/21703

The Paris Court of Appeals set aside an investment arbitration award for “manifest, effective and concrete” violation of the international public order. It ruled that the award had provided the respondent with a title for an investment made in Laos by fraudulently obtaining an administrative authorization for exploitation of natural resources. The two original versions [...]

2018-02-18T20:19:53+00:00 January 16th, 2018|Court of Appeal, Paris Court of Appeal|0 Comments

Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2, 11 January 2018, Pierre Estoup v. Bernard Tapie et al., no. 16-24740

An appeal is brought against the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal of 27 September 2016 declaring inadmissible the third objection brought by Judge Estoup in the Tapie case. The third opposition was intended to declare non-binding the magistrate Estoup, the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal of Paris of February 17, 2015, [...]

2018-02-12T08:17:25+00:00 January 11th, 2018|Cour de cassation|0 Comments