Examples of Yukos Capital in a sentence
When, in Berezovsky (n 119) 2320 [97], Longmore LJ states that ‘I cannot think that any question of act of state can arise’ that should, in the context of the judgment as a whole, be read as an indication that the act of state doctrine was not applicable on Kirkpatrick grounds because facts rather than validity were at issue and not, as Yukos Capital maintains, that ‘the act of state doctrine was not involved’.
Respondent accuses Yukos of turning YNG into a “wasting asset”1261 by foisting upon it “upstream guarantees”1262 for its loan in favour of Moravel and forcing YNG to borrow USD 485 million from affiliate Yukos Capital.
Russian courts accorded similar treatment to the remaining Yukos affiliates with outstanding claims against Yukos, such as Yukos Capital SARL, Glendale Group Limited, OOO Yu-Mordovia, OOO Yukos Vostok Trade, ZAO Yukos-M, OOO Siberian Internet Company, OOO Trading House Yukos-M, ZAO Krasnoyarskgeofizika, ZAO Lipetsknefteprodukt, and 1457 Resolution of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, 11 August 2006, Exh.
For relief, Yukos Capital sought “an order (a) confirming the Award pursuant to the New York Convention, and (b) entering judgment in Yukos Capital’s favor in the amount specified in the Award,” as well as pre- and post-judgment interest.
See the important unanimous Court of Appeal decision in Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co [2012] EWCA Civ 855; [2014] Q.B. 458.
Claimant mischaracterizes the 1/16% and 1/32% spreads as reflecting “arm’s-length terms,” 294 based on the ipse dixit of its Luxembourg counsel in letters sent to the Luxembourg tax authorities in 2003 and 2004.295 Claimant neither provides any evidence of negotiations among Yukos Capital and its counterparties nor an analysis of the interest rate spreads accepted by market participants around the time of the transactions in question.221.
Gleichenhaus is of the view that the 2003 Brittany Agreement and the 2004 Hedgerow Agreement should be of no consequence in considering the 2003 Yukos Oil Agreement and the 2004 Yukos Oil Agreement because those earlier agreements merely reflect “hedging” activities on the part of Yukos Capital.
RUB denominated borrowings – Yukos related primarily include borrowings provided by Yukos Capital S.a.r.l., which bore interest of 9% and matured at the end of 2007 (see Note 22).
There is nothing to suggest that the ECT affords intercompany loans any less protection than other investments.19Third, Yukos Capital took a “‘risk’” in making the Loan.
In that case, the SFSC held that the arbitral tribunal had validly assumed jurisdiction on the basis of the provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty, 90 and that Yukos Capital Limited's investment in the Russian Federation was not illegal.