Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Yukos Capital v. Russia, Email from the Claimant to the Tribunal on the Respondent's Challenge to Jurisdiction and Standing, April 16, 2018

16 Apr 2018
Yukos Capital Limited (formerly Yukos Capital SARL) v. Russian Federation, UNCITRAL (Geneva Tribunal), PCA Case No. 2013-31
View case details
Claimant's Email Regarding the Respondent's Challenge to Jurisdiction and Standing
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Claimant's Email Regarding the Respondent's Challenge to Jurisdiction and Standing
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
J. William Rowley
Respondent appointee
Brigitte Stern
Tribunal/Panel chair
Campbell A. McLachlan
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Cyrus Benson III
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Peter H. Goldsmith, Samantha Rowe, Conway Blake
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Jack Wass
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Yukos Capital Limited, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Debevoise & Plimpton, Russia
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Claimant's Email Regarding the Respondent's Challenge to Jurisdiction and Standing
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a communication from the Claimant to the arbitral tribunal, submitted in response to the Respondent’s letters dated 3 April and 11 April 2018. The Claimant opposes the Respondent's attempt to revisit jurisdictional findings already determined in the Tribunal’s Interim Award on Jurisdiction dated 18 January 2017.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues

The principal legal issue addressed is whether the Claimant’s post-filing corporate restructuring—specifically, a cross-border merger resulting in the absorption of the original Luxembourg entity by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity—defeats the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The Respondent sought document production regarding the ownership and control of the newly formed BVI entity, questioning the Claimant's standing and its ability to satisfy potential adverse costs orders.

Claimant's Position

The Claimant asserts that under established principles of international investment law, jurisdiction is determined by reference to the date proceedings are instituted and remains unaffected by subsequent events, including changes in corporate nationality. Relying on the doctrine of universal succession under both Luxembourg and BVI law, the Claimant argues that the BVI entity assumed all rights, obligations, and liabilities of the original claimant by operation of law. Furthermore, the Claimant contends that the restructuring does not alter the Tribunal's prior findings on the denial of benefits under ECT Article 17, as ultimate indirect control remains unchanged. Finally, the Claimant maintains that the re-domiciliation to the BVI, a party to the New York Convention, does not impair the enforceability of any future adverse costs orders.

Requested Relief

The Claimant requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Respondent’s unsubstantiated requests for the production of documents relating to the post-filing ownership and control of the Claimant entities. Additionally, the Claimant seeks an order directing the Respondent to bear the costs incurred by the Claimant in responding to these applications.