Court reinstates order for Russia to pay $50 bln over Yukos

Breaking Stories

In a major legal defeat for the Russian government, a Dutch appeals court on Tuesday reinstated an international arbitration panel’s order that it should pay $50 billion compensation to shareholders in former oil company Yukos.

The ruling overturned a 2016 decision by The Hague District Court that quashed the compensation order on the grounds that the arbitration panel did not have jurisdiction because the case was based on an energy treaty that Russia had signed but not ratified.

The Hague Court of Appeal ruled that the 2016 decision “was not correct. That means that the arbitration order is in force again.”

“This is a victory for the rule of law. The independent courts of a democracy have shown their integrity and served justice. A brutal kleptocracy has been held to account,” Tim Osborne, the chief executive of GML, a company made up of Yukos shareholders, said in a statement.

The Russian Justice Ministry said in a statement after the verdict that Russia will appeal. It charged that the Hague appeals court “failed to take into account the illegitimate use by former Yukos shareholders of the Energy Charter Treaty that wasn’t ratified by the Russian federation.”

Related listings

  • Blackbeard's ship case about images returns to trial court

    Blackbeard's ship case about images returns to trial court

    Breaking Stories 11/02/2019

    A treasure hunter who accuses the state of North Carolina of misusing his images from Blackbeard's flagship says he'll ask for 10 times the damages he originally sought, now that a court ruling has come down in his favor.John Masters of Florida-based...

  • Supreme Court to decide if Trump can end 'dreamers' program

    Supreme Court to decide if Trump can end 'dreamers' program

    Breaking Stories 06/24/2019

    Adding a high-stakes immigration case to its election-year agenda, the Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether President Donald Trump can terminate an Obama-era program shielding young migrants from deportation.    The justice...

  • After Mueller, Trump says he'll fight Dems on all fronts

    After Mueller, Trump says he'll fight Dems on all fronts

    Breaking Stories 04/22/2019

    President Donald Trump declared Wednesday that he and his administration will battle House Democrats on all legal fronts after the special counsel's Russia report, refusing to cooperate with subpoenas and appealing to the Supreme Court if Congress tr...

What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?

If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?

Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.

A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.

In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.