• Search

Enforcement and Set-Aside

KazMunayGas can continue enforcement efforts, rules court

KazMunayGas can continue enforcement efforts, rules court

15 May 2018

The Commercial Court in London has ruled that a subsidiary of Kazakhstan’s state-owned oil and gas company can continue its efforts to enforce a US$200 million award against assets held by a former director accused of dissipating assets – while other enforcement efforts continue around the world.

Kazakhstan creditors can’t pull out of fraud trial, rules judge

Kazakhstan creditors can’t pull out of fraud trial, rules judge

11 May 2018

The High Court in London has ruled that allegations that a US$520 million Stockholm Chamber of Commerce award against Kazakhstan was obtained through fraud must proceed to trial despite the claimants’ decision to abandon enforcement proceedings in England and Wales.

ICSID creditor targets Venezuelan “alter egos”

ICSID creditor targets Venezuelan “alter egos”

09 May 2018

Two months after its US$1.37 billion ICSID award against Venezuela was confirmed in the US, Canadian mining company Rusoro has asked a Texas court to help enforce against the country’s national oil and gas company PDVSA and other “alter egos” of the state which it accuses of fraudulently transferring assets abroad to escape the reach of arbitral creditors.

Award against Ukrainian oligarch upheld in London

Award against Ukrainian oligarch upheld in London

03 May 2018

The English Commercial Court has dismissed a challenge to a US$820 million LCIA award against a company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov – rejecting suggestions that the tribunal’s failure to await the outcome of court proceedings in Ukraine before issuing it constituted a serious irregularity.

After Achmea, all eyes on Micula

After Achmea, all eyes on Micula

01 May 2018

As the confrontation between the EU and ISDS intensifies, GAR reports on recent developments in the Micula brothers' battle to collect on their ICSID award against Romania, including a long-awaited hearing before an EU court and the unfreezing of bank accounts in Luxembourg.

Guatemalan power plant award upheld in Singapore

Guatemalan power plant award upheld in Singapore

27 April 2018

A Singapore court has upheld a US$149 million ICC award in a dispute over a power plant in Guatemala – rejecting arguments that the tribunal unfairly restricted one side’s access to evidence and failed in a duty to investigate corruption allegations.

Quinn Emanuel partner admitted in Singapore for Lesotho mining dispute

Quinn Emanuel partner admitted in Singapore for Lesotho mining dispute

26 April 2018

Stephen Jagusch QC, global head of international arbitration at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, has become the latest arbitration practitioner admitted to appear before Singapore’s highest court, where he will represent a group of South African investors in their bid to reinstate an investment treaty award against Lesotho.

CIETAC award upheld in London despite forgery

CIETAC award upheld in London despite forgery

25 April 2018

In a judgment featuring detailed discussion of the public policy exception to enforcement in the 1996 Arbitration Act, the English Court of Appeal has declined to set aside a CIETAC award on illegality grounds where a party presented forged bills of lading for a shipment of steel from China to Mexico.

New evidence allowed in Yukos set-aside bid

New evidence allowed in Yukos set-aside bid

18 April 2018

A Canadian court has refused to strike out evidence submitted by Russia in support of a challenge to an award on jurisdiction in a US$700 million Energy Charter Treaty claim by an alleged investor in the defunct Yukos oil company.

Award challenge upheld in Indian oil and gas dispute

Award challenge upheld in Indian oil and gas dispute

18 April 2018

The English Commercial Court has partly upheld a challenge by India’s Reliance Industries and its partner BG Group to an UNCITRAL award issued in favour of the Indian government in a US$1 billion dispute over oil and gas fields, ruling that the tribunal’s failure to consider an issue relating to cost recovery had given rise to a “substantial injustice.”