In United States decided on case of compensation for former Yukos shareholders

Court in the American district of Columbia decided to make compensation for former Yukos shareholders. It is reported by RIA Novosti.

The judicial instance refused to resume the proceedings before the completion of the proceedings in the Netherlands. In court, noted that the suspension of production in this case is relevant and fully justified, since further proceedings may be fruitless if Russia defeats in Holland or any further appeals in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

It is noted that with a request to resume the process of Hulley Enterprises, Veteran Petroleum and Yukos Universal. The departments did not agree with the requirements of the plaintiffs, noting that their interpretation of what was happening in Amsterdam is erroneous.

Earlier it was reported that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands canceled the decision to pay Russia more than fifty billion dollars to the former shareholders of YUKOS and decided to revise it. The official report says that the court ruled in favor of Russia and canceled the decision to pay compensation to three former major shareholders of the oil company. The explanatory note states that under procedural reasons, the Arbitration Court of Hague erroneously ignored the argument of Russia that the shareholders allegedly committed fraud in the arbitration procedure, and therefore did not undertake a decision on the merits.

The former shareholders of the YUKOS company filed to international arbitration in the Hague lawsuit in 2005. Initially, the court arose to their side and ordered Russia to pay them 50 billion dollars. The decision canceled the District Court of the Hague, but then the appellate instance fell to the side of the shareholders.

For its part, the Constitutional Court of Russia allowed not to pay for the former Yukos shareholders. In general, the Russian side is ready for a protracted proceedings: Moscow claims that she has serious arguments. In particular, in the Ministry of Justice, the plaintiffs have repeatedly made financial crimes in their homeland: they did not pay taxes and illegally removed the capital, and therefore they cannot be considered conscientious investors.

/Media reports.