In the USA, a decision was made on the case of payment of compensation to the former shareholders of Yukos

A US court refused to reopen a case on Russia's payment of compensation to former Yukos shareholders to the former shareholders of Yukos. This was reported by RIA Novosti.

The court refused to reopen the suit before the end of the proceedings in the Netherlands. The court noted that the suspension of proceedings in this case is appropriate and fully justified, since further proceedings may be fruitless if Russia wins a final victory in Holland or any further appeals to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

It is noted that Hulley Enterprises, Veteran Petroleum and Yukos Universal applied to the court to resume the process. The department did not agree with the claims of the plaintiffs, noting that their interpretation of what is happening in Amsterdam is erroneous.

Earlier it was reported that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands overturned the decision on the payment of more than fifty billion dollars by Russia to the former shareholders of Yukos and ordered to reconsider it. The official statement said that the court ruled in favor of Russia and overturned the order to pay compensation to three former major shareholders of the oil company. The explanatory note states that, for procedural reasons, the Hague Court of Appeal erroneously ignored Russia's argument that the shareholders allegedly committed fraud in the arbitration procedure and therefore did not issue a decision on the merits.

Former Yukos shareholders filed a claim with the International Arbitration Court in The Hague back in 2005. Initially, the court sided with them and ordered Russia to pay them $ 50 billion. The decision was overturned by the District Court of The Hague, but then the appellate instance sided with the shareholders.

For its part, the Russian Constitutional Court allowed not to pay the former shareholders of YUKOS. On the whole, the Russian side is ready for a protracted trial: Moscow claims that it has serious arguments. In particular, the Ministry of Justice said that the plaintiffs had repeatedly committed financial crimes at home: they did not pay taxes and illegally withdraw capital, and therefore cannot be considered bona fide investors.



Leave a Reply