The Prospect of Enforcement of Hague Arbitration Awards against State-Controlled Companies in the United States and the United Kingdom

Full Text:


In 2014 the Permanent Arbitration Court in The Hague made unprecedented awards totalling US$50 billion against the Russian Federation. The awards crowned more than nine years of arbitration proceedings initiated by the former shareholders of the liquidated oil company Yukos. Although the former shareholders of Yukos represented by the GML Group declared their intention to only enforce the awards against the assets of the Russian state, the lack of assets not covered by state immunity inevitably opens the possibility of enforcement of the awards against the assets owned by the Russian majors controlled by the state. Due to its involvement in the Yukos case, Rosneft, the biggest Russian oil company, will undoubtedly be the first and the main target of such enforcement. This article aims to examine whether the former shareholders of Yukos could succeed in enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in the two main jurisdictions: the United Kingdom and the United States. The article examines the existing legal tests applicable in enforcement proceedings in these jurisdictions to state-controlled companies by considering the corporate structure of Rosneft and its business operations. The findings of the research are widely applicable to the other state-controlled Russian companies.

About the Author

Dmitry Gololobov
University of Westminster
United Kingdom

Visiting Professor, University of Westminster, Visiting Lecture, BPP University, Russian Advocate and Solicitor of England and Wales, Principal of the Private Practice Gololobov and Co.,

27 Cosway Mansions, London, NW1 6UE, UK


1. Bushell, Simon, & Davies, James. Yukos Arbitration: The Difficulties of Enforcement, Practical Law (Aug. 28, 2015), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

2. Cave, Andrew. The Man Who Won $50B from Russian President Vladimir Putin – And Now Has to Collect It, Forbes (Aug. 8, 2014), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

3. Chan, Elizabeth. The Vulture Swoops and Devours Its Prize: The Unsatisfactory Law of State Immunity in Democratic Republic of Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates LLC, 19 Te Mata Koi: Auckland U. L. Rev. 145, 165 (2013).

4. Christopher, Mark M. Piercing the Corporate Veil between Foreign Governments and State Enterprises: A Comparison of Judicial Resolutions in Great Britain and the United States, 25 Va. J. Int’l L. 451, 461 (1984–85).

5. Corporate Governance Disclosure in the Russian Federation: A Case Study by the Russian Institute of Directors ¶ 31, <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

6. Crawford, James. Execution of Judgments and Foreign Sovereign Immunity, 75 Am. J. Int’l L. 820, 866 (1981).

7. Engle, Sandra. Choosing Law for Attributing Liability under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: A Proposal for Uniformity, 15 Fordham Int’l L.J. 1060, 1082 (1991–92), available at <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

8. Engström, Dan, & Marian, Cornel. The Swedish Yukos Saga: RosInvest’s Pyrrhic Victory over Russia and the Fortunate Correction of Previous Swedish Case Law under Which Swedish Courts Lacked Jurisdiction over Challenges against Awards in the Absence of Any Connection to Sweden, 2011 IBA Arbitration Newsletter 80, available at <> (Dec. 3, 2015).

9. Farchy, Jack. Igor Sechin: Russia’s Second Most Powerful Man, FT (Apr. 28, 2014), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

10. Fouret, Julien, & Daureu, Pierre. Enforcement of the Yukos Awards: A Second Noga Saga or a New Sedelmayer Fight?, 30(2) ICSID Rev. 337–38 (2015). doi:10.1093/icsidreview/siv015

11. Fox, Hazel, QC. The Law of State Immunity 6 (Oxford University Press 2002).

12. Goldhaber, Michael. A Lifetime of Litigation – The Fall of Yukos, (Jul. 9, 2010), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

13. Kennedy, Simon. Rosneft Raises $10.4 Bln in 5th-Biggest IPO, MarketWatch (Jul. 14, 2006), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

14. Kinstler, Linda. Yukos Shareholders Declare War on Russia’s Assets, Politico (Jun. 18, 2015), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

15. Olsen, Mike. The Future of National Oil Companies in Russia and How They May Improve Their Global Competitiveness, 35 Hous. J. Int’l L. 617, 627 (2013).

16. Philippov, Ivan. Yukos Award– Beginning of aNew Enforcement Saga,CIS Arbitration Forum (Jun. 10, 2015), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

17. Pinkston, Jarred, et al. Jurisdictional Requirements for the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Defendants and Their Ownership Interest in Subsidiaries– AComparative Review, 15(3) Int’l Arb. L. Rev. 97 (2012).

18. Poussenkova, Nina. Lord of the Rigs: Rosneft as a Mirror of Russian Evolution (Rice University, Baker Institute for Public Policy Working Paper, March 2007), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

19. Poussenkova, Nina. The Global Expansion of Russia’s Energy Giants, 63(2) J. Int’l Aff. 108 (2010).

20. Rapoza, Kenneth. Are European Companies Ignoring E.U. Sanctions on Russia?, Forbes (Jun. 21, 2015), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

21. Riblett, Phillip. A Legal Regime for State-Owned Companies in the Modern Era, 18 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 1, 14, 27 (2008–09), available at <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

22. Ross, Alison. Fatally Flawed? Why Russia Says the Awards Should Not Stand, Global Arbitration Review (Jan. 27, 2015), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

23. Ross, Alison. Was the Tribunal’s Assistant the Fourth Yukos Arbitrator?, Global Arbitration Review, <> (accessed Dec. 3, 10, 2015).

24. Ross, Alison. Yukos Moves to the Dutch Courts, 10(1) Global Arbitration Review, available at <> (Dec. 3, 2015).

25. Salomon, Claudia T., & Duffy, J.P. Enforcement Begins when the Arbitration Clause is Drafted, 22(2) Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 272 (2011).

26. Sinclair, Anthony, & Stranger-Jones, David. Execution of Judgments or Awards against the Assets of State Entities, 4 Disp. Resol. Int’l 95–96, 99, 101 (2010).

27. State Entities in International Arbitration (= 4 IAI Series on International Arbitration) 475 (Emmanuel Gaillard & Jennifer Younan, eds.) (Juris Pub. 2008).

28. State Immunity and State-Owned Enterprises: Report Prepared for Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, Clifford Chance (Dec. 2008), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

29. Steele, Molly, & Heinlen, Michael. Challenges to Enforcing Arbitral Awards against Foreign States in the United States, 42 Int’l Law. 87, 88 (2008), available at <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

30. Tan, Cheng-Han. Veil Piercing: A Fresh Start, 2015(1) J. Bus. L. 26.

31. Tsvetkov, Vitaly V. Will There Finally Be a Payoff for Yukos Investors?, Gradient Alpha (Aug. 1, 2014), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

32. Vaughan, Frederick W. Foreign States Are Foreign States: Why Foreign State-Owned Corporations Are Not Persons under the Due Process Clause, 45 Ga. L. Rev. 913, 935 (2010–11).

33. Гололобов Д. Пятилетка Юкоса: Тупиковое дело [Gololobov D. Pyatiletka Yukosa: Tupikovoe delo [Dmitry Gololobov, The Yukos’ Five-Year Plan: A Deadlock Case]], Vedomosti (Jul. 26, 2007), <> (accessed Dec. 3, 2015).

Supplementary files

For citation: Gololobov D. The Prospect of Enforcement of Hague Arbitration Awards against State-Controlled Companies in the United States and the United Kingdom. Russian Law Journal. 2015;3(4):7-31.

Views: 1172


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)