|This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2014)|
|Native name||Нефтяна́я Компа́ния Ю́КОС|
|Founded||Moscow, Russia (April 15, 1993)|
|Defunct||November 21, 2007|
OJSC "Yukos Oil Company" (Russian: ОАО Нефтяна́я Компа́ния Ю́КОС, IPA: [ˈjukəs]) was a petroleum company in Russia which, until 2003, was controlled by Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a number of other prominent Russian businessmen. After Yukos was bankrupted, Khodorkovsky was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.
Yukos' headquarters was located in Moscow. Yukos was one of the biggest and most successful Russian companies in 2000–03, having originally acquired its assets controversially from the Russian government during the privatizations of the early 1990s. In 2003, following a tax reassessment, the Russian government presented Yukos with a series of tax claims that amounted to US$27 billion. As Yukos' assets were frozen by the government at the same time, the company was not able to pay these tax demands. On August 1, 2006, a Russian court declared Yukos bankrupt. Most of Yukos's assets were sold at low prices to oil companies owned by the Russian government. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has condemned Russia's campaign against Yukos and its owners as manufactured for political reasons and a violation of human rights.
In 2011 (finalized 2012) the former management was successful in the European Court of Human Rights which ruled there had been unfair use of the legal and tax system and "unyielding and inflexible" conduct, related to how the tax payments (found reasonable in themselves) and fines were assessed and payable with little notice, while simultaneous freezing orders prevented the payments being made. Four International Court of Arbitration awards were won, and then overturned, in Russia, following which they were further ruled on for enforcement purposes by Dutch and UK courts, eventually ruled in Yukos' favor. Part of these awards was eventually enforced and paid, while the remainder (largely related to interest) continues to be the subject of proceedings as at 2014. An additional sum was awarded by a New York court. Relatively small amounts were awarded to minority shareholders by the Sweden-based Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, which concluded that the state's action was an "unlawful expropriation", whose effect was intended to "destroy Yukos and gain control over its assets".
In July 2014, an arbitral tribunal formed under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled for the majority shareholders, who were awarded $50 billion against Russia. The court ruled unanimously that an expropriation had taken place, breaching Article 13 (1) of the Energy Charter Treaty. According to the Court, Yukos was the object of a series of politically motivated attacks by Russian authorities that eventually led to its destruction. The primary objective of the Russian Federation was not to collect taxes but rather to bankrupt Yukos and appropriate its valuable assets. State apparatus decided to take advantage of that vulnerability to bankrupt Yukos and appropriate its assets for the sole benefit of the Russian state and state-owned companies Rosneft and Gazprom and removing Khodorkovsky from the political arena. The auction of Yuganskneftegaz company was rigged. Baikal Finance Group’s Yuganskneftegaz purchase was an action in the state's interest, the inference being that of the state, the 100% shareholder of Rosneft.
- 1 History
- 2 Yukos tax claims, breakup, and aftermath
- 2.1 Tax claims
- 2.2 Forced sale of assets
- 2.3 Bankruptcy
- 2.4 Management responses
- 2.5 International legal proceedings
- 3 See also
- 4 References
- 5 External links
The company was created on April 15, 1993 by Resolution №. 354 of the Russian government, following Presidential Decree 1403 (November 17, 1992), which had directed additional companies to be set up to develop the oil and gas sector in Russia. It initially comprised the following enterprises: a Western Siberian oil extraction enterprise Yuganskneftegaz, three oil refineries in Samara Oblast: Novokuybyshevsk NPZ, Kuybyshev NPZ and Syzran NPZ (NPZ stands for NeftePererabatyvayushchy Zavod, literally "petroleum processing plant"), with a refinery and eight distribution companies in Central Russia and Siberia.[verification needed] Sergei Muravlenko (Cyrillic: Сергей Муравленко), the former General Director of Yuganskneftegaz and son of Viktor Muravlenko, a former head of the oil and gas sector during the Soviet regime, was appointed the first chairman and president. In 1995, decree, №. 864 of the Russian government, added Samaraneftegaz to Yukos. Its Russian abbreviation ЮКОС ("Yukos") is an acronym for the main oil and gas entities initially comprising the company: Yuganskneftegaz (Cyrillic: Юганскнефтегаз), based in Nefteyugansk, and Kuybyshevnefteorgsintez (Cyrillic: КуйбышевнефтеОргСинтез), named for the city of Kuybyshev (now known as Samara)).
Its first assets were acquired in controversial circumstances from the Russian Government during the privatizations of the early 1990s. The initial period of "oligarchic privatization" was characterized by bloodshed, and Yukos was certainly no exception. Alexei Pichugin, the former Security Chief of Yukos, has been convicted on multiple counts of murder and attempted murder, and is under investigation along with Yukos partner Nevzlin for the shooting Vladimir Petukhov, mayor of the Yugansk oil province and a vehement opponent of Yukos, on Khodorkovsky's birthday in 1998.)
In 1996, with Russia in economic difficulty, many large state-owned industrial businesses were privatized in a second round of reorganization ("Loans for shares"), in which sold off to Russian commercial banks in a series of rigged auctions whose participants were limited to favored bidders with political connections.
One of the commercial banks contending for Yukos was banking group Bank Menatep, chaired by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a past president of the Investment Promotion program for the Ministry of Fuel and Energy.[verification needed] Menatep became the owner of 78% of Yukos shares following the series of auctions and Khodorkovsky became its CEO. At the time, Yukos, like most other Russian energy companies, was badly affected by the economic recession in the 1990s. Yukos recovered very quickly and, in the course of the next few years, became one of Russia’s largest oil companies and one of the world's largest non-state oil companies, and a leader in Russian corporate governance reform, At the peak of its success, Yukos was producing 20% of Russian oil—about 2% of world production. In 2004, Yukos pumped 1.7 million barrels of oil a day.
Khodorkovsky was widely seen as a pro-democratic reformer. Yukos had five Americans on its board, and Khodorkovsky's charity "Open Russia" listed Henry Kissinger and Lord Rothschild as chairmen. In April 2003, Yukos agreed to a merger/takeover with Sibneft, to create the fourth largest private company in the world, although this merger became undone in the aftermath of the October 2003 arrest of Yukos' CEO, Khodorkovsky.
Yukos tax claims, breakup, and aftermath
Although weak at the time of the auctions and the economic downturn of the mid-1990s, from 2000 the government under new leader Vladimir Putin grew in strength, until it became able politically to outweigh the power of the oligarchs. On October 25, 2003, Yukos CEO Khodorkovsky was arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion. Leonid Bershidsky, founder of Russian business newspaper Vedomosti, wrote: "Any of the oligarchs could have faced similar charges; Khodorkovsky's imprisonment made them so docile that Putin confined himself to making an example of just one victim".
At the time of his arrest, Khodorkovsky was believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia and was listed by Forbes as the 16th richest person in the world, with a fortune estimated at $15 billion. His eventual sentence in 2005 was for 10 years, and attracted widespread international concern related to a perceived political motivation and lack of due process.
(The European Court of Human Rights eventually ruled that while the arrest and several other points were unlawful, he was not a "political prisoner" since the charges against him had been based on reasonable suspicion.)
The arrest was followed by a tax investigation into Yukos by the tax authorities, in December 2003, after which in April 2004 Yukos was issued in stages with tax claims for $27 billion, a sum that exceeded its total revenues for 2002 and 2003. At the same time, Yukos's assets were frozen by the government and offers exploring other ways to settle, such as payment in stages or sale of non-core assets, were refused or ignored. In July 2004, its core asset, Yuganskneftegaz - producing 60% of the company's oil and by itself as much oil as Iraq or Libya and variously valued between $14.7 to $22 billion and $30.4 billion - was confiscated.
In December 2004, Yuganskneftegaz was sold for $9.35 billion in a closed-room auction of just two bidders (one of which, Gazpromneft, was subject to a US court injunction and did not enter a bid), to an unknown front company called Baikalfinansgrup which had been registered a few days before the auction, and whose bid was financed by state-owned oil company Rosneft. Rosneft acquired Baikalfinansgrup within days of the auction, at which point the tax bill was "slashed". Just over a year later Yuganskneftegaz was formally valued by Rosneft at $56 billion.
On February 7, 2006, in response to a question posed by a Spanish journalist, Russian President Vladimir Putin disclosed that Rosneft had used Baikalfinansgrup as a vehicle to acquire Yuganskneftegaz to protect itself against litigation risks.
Yukos was bankrupted in 2006 and liquidated in 2007.
In July 2004, Yukos was charged with tax evasion, for an amount of over US$27 billion. The Russian government accused the company of misusing tax havens inside Russia in the 1990s so as to reduce its tax burden; havens were set up by most major oil producers in outlying areas of Russia which had been granted special tax status to assist in their economic development; such "onshore-offshore" were used to evade profit taxes, resulting in Yukos having an effective tax rate of 11%, vs a statutory rate of 30% at the time. Yukos claims its actions were legal at the time and that the company used the same tax optimisation schemes as other Russian oil companies, such as Lukoil, TNK-BP and Sibneft. However, Yukos was the only one to be charged with tax evasion and penalised by the authorities.
Yukos subsidiaries declared the oil they produced to be "oil-containing liquids" to avoid paying full taxes. A general crackdown on such tax evasion practices began with Putin's presidency, with numerous companies closing or purchasing their trading vehicles. A management presentation from December 2004 shows that the tax claims put the "total tax burden" for 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 at 67%, 105%, 111%, and 83% of the company's declared revenue during those years. As a comparison, the annual tax bill of Gazprom is about US$4 billion on 2003 revenues of US$28.867 billion.
Yukos parent company, the Menatep group, lobbied extensively and successfully to influence Western public opinion, retaining Margery Kraus of APCO who successfully pushed through resolutions inter alia before the US House of Representatives and the Council of Europe. According to a resolution of the Council of Europe,
- "Intimidating action by different law-enforcement agencies against Yukos and its business partners and other institutions linked to Mr Khodorkovsky and his associates and the careful preparation of this action in terms of public relations, taken together, give a picture of a co-ordinated attack by the state."
- This "raises serious issues pertaining to the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege laid down in Article 7 of the ECHR and also to the right to the protection of property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR."
- "The circumstances of the sale by auction of Yuganskneftegaz to “Baikal Finance Group” and the swift takeover of the latter by state-owned Rosneft raises additional issues related to the protection of property (ECHR, Additional Protocol, Article 1). This concerns both the circumstances of the auction itself, resulting in a price far below the fair market-value, and the way Yukos was forced to sell off its principal asset, by way of trumped-up tax reassessments leading to a total tax burden far exceeding that of Yukos’s competitors, and for 2002 even exceeding Yukos’ total revenue for that year."
Forced sale of assets
On October 31, 2003, shortly after the arrest of the company's CEO, the Russian government froze ownership of 44% of the company's shares. The reason given was to prevent a group of shareholders led by Khodorkovsky from selling a large stake of the company to the US oil firm Exxon. A Yukos shareholders' meeting scheduled for December 20, 2004 was to discuss a "crisis plan." A Russian company must hold such a meeting before it can apply for bankruptcy in Russia. The Russian Government sold Yukos's main production unit, known as Yuganskneftegas, at auction on December 19, 2004 to recover some of US$28 billion in alleged tax debts, following the loss of an appeal by the firm. Menatep, the company representing Khodorkovsky, promised to challenge the sale's legality in a number of countries, and to sue the buyer and any company helping to fund the deal. The expected buyer was the 38% Russian state owned company OAO Gazprom. Some European and American oil firms decided not to bid.
On December 19, 2004, the Baikalfinansgrup, an unknown company registered several days before the auction in Tver at an address where a snack bar was located, won the auction for Yukos's subsidiary Yuganskneftegas with a 260.75 billion rubles ($9.4 billion) bid. Yuganskneftegas was a few months earlier valued at between US$15 billion and US$17 billion by DrKW which the Russian government hired to value the subsidiary. Suggested financiers to the Baikal Finance Group are Gazprom, Sberbank, the Russian central bank, China National Petroleum Corporation, and ONGC (India). The reason for this arrangement may be that Gazprom feared international legal action against it after a Houston, Texas court ruling that barred Gazprom from bidding for the unit. This ruling was subsequently vacated.
According to people familiar with the auction[who?] only two bidders registered for, and were present during, the auction process: Baikalfinansgrup and Gazprom's former oil unit Gazpromneft. Accounts from the auction say that the first bid of US$8.6 billion came from Baikal. When the auctioneer asked Gazpromneft to offer its price, a representative of the company asked to make a telephone call and left the room. A few minutes earlier, the auctioneer had told participants that using a mobile phone or leaving the room was against the rules. When a Gazpromneft representative returned to the room, Baikal made a bid of US$9.3 billion. Gazpromneft never placed a bid or spoke out. Shortly after the Yuganskneftegaz auction, Rosneft, Russian state-owned oil company, acquired 100% of shares in Baikalfinansgrup. The acquisition of Yuganskneftegaz significantly increased Rosneft's profits and made it one of the largest oil companies in Russia.
On June 15, 2006, based on a bank deposit of $4 million USD and its American CEO's Houston home, Yukos filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States, estimating its assets at US$12.3 billion and its debts at US$30.8 billion, including "alleged taxes owed to the Russian government". It accused the Russian authorities of "an unprecedented campaign of illegal, discriminatory, and disproportionate tax claims escalating into raids and confiscations, culminating in intimidation and arrests". After several weeks of deliberation, the Houston court declared that under no conceivable theory could Yukos assert domicile in the United States. On July 25, 2006, the creditors of Yukos decided to file for bankruptcy after the bankruptcy manager recommended the company be liquidated.
At the time, key management included:
By mid-December, 2004, all members of the board of Yukos, and most of the company's senior managers, had left Russia, some of them because of "fear of arrest" after being "summoned for questioning by prosecutors". According to a December 2004 Houston, Texas court filing, the CFO resides in Houston. According to a company spokeswoman the CEO resided in London, UK as of December 2004. Executives Mikhail Brudno and Vladimir Dubov fled to Israel in 2003, and were seen on February 2, 2005 in Washington, D.C. at an official function for President George W. Bush.
Both men were cited in an international arrest warrant regarding their involvement in the Yukos tax case. On Wednesday, April 6, 2006, the company's Executive Vice President, Vasily Aleksanyan, was arrested just six days into his new role. Yukos commented on its web site that, "We can only assume that this action against him is a direct result of his accepting a position to work to protect Yukos Oil Company and its legitimate stakeholders." The following month, it was reported that some individuals established themselves as the "New Management" of Yukos. However, this was apparently an illegal act, as Yukos "emphatically rejected" the legitimacy of the "new management" which had Vinokurov as President. According to Yukos, these individuals were "loyal to Rosneft" and had as goal the downfall of Yukos. A Yukos lawyer, Pavel Ivlev, was accused of several crimes,[clarification needed] after which he moved to the USA.[when?] In July 2006, one week before creditors would vote if they should file for bankruptcy, Steven Theede resigned his function as he believed the outcome of this vote was already fixed and therefore this meeting would qualify as a "sham".
International legal proceedings
The company's former shareholders and management filed a series of claims in courts and arbitration panels in various countries, seeking compensation. The largest, for over $100 billion, was filed at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2007. US and Russian investors, representing about 15 percent and 5 percent of Yukos, respectively, lack the benefit of an investment treaty.
On July 28, 2014, the PCA rendered the decision of the three arbitrators serving in the case, Canadian arbitrator L Yves Fortier QC, Judge Stephen Shwebel of the United States, and Charles Poncet of Switzerland. The arbitrators awarded the Yukos shareholders over USD $50 billion in damages, finding that Russia had expropriated the Yukos oil company in a series of politically-motivated attacks.
Court proceedings of Yukos management
Claim in Houston court
In 2005, Yukos asked a US court in Houston to send its multibillion-dollar tax dispute with the Russian authorities to an international arbitration forum.
Claim in the European Court of Human Rights
On April 23, 2004, shortly after the imposition of the tax assessment for the year 2000, the former management of Yukos (OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights.
Yukos’ claim in the ECHR argues that the company's rights, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, were violated in Russian courts, which led to its bankruptcy and liquidation; it also argues that Yukos has been singled out for discriminatory treatment. Yukos complained that their rights were breached under several articles of the Convention, specifically:
“Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant company complains about various defects in the proceedings concerning its tax liability for the year 2000. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention, it complains about the lawfulness and proportionality of the 2000–2003 Tax Assessments and their subsequent enforcement, including the forced sale of OAO Yuganskneftegaz. Lastly, the applicant company complains, under Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention, about the lack of proper legal basis, selective and arbitrary prosecution and the imposition of double penalties in the Tax Assessment proceedings for the years 2000–2003.”
Following an admissibility assessment that took five years, the court declared the Yukos application admissible on 29 January 2009. This in itself was a significant achievement for Yukos, as the Court declares admissible only less than 5% of all submitted applications.
The hearing on merits of the Yukos Oil Company v Russia case in the European Court of Human Rights took place on 4 March 2010. Yukos Oil Company was represented by Piers Gardner, Barrister of Monckton Chambers. The Russian side was represented by a team of lawyers, which included Georgy Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and British lawyer Michael Swainston. The claim before the ECHR amounted to US$98 billion. This was the largest claim to be brought in the court’s 60-year history. The claim is an estimate of what the value of Yukos would have been if its assets had not been stripped away and the company had not been liquidated in 2007.
The decision on this case was announced on September 20, 2011. 
The court announced that the Russian state violated the human rights of Yukos by agreeing that there had been a violation of Yukos' right to fairness in legal proceedings in relation to a tax re-assessment for 2000. The court also established that there had been a violation of the right to protection of property through enforcement proceedings carried out over tax assessments from 2000–03. The interpretation of the tax liabilities which were applied to Yukos was foreseeable, but the court still noted that the crux of the case was the rapid and inflexible enforcement of those liabilities. Yukos had been effectively paralysed because all of its assets were frozen from the first assessment. The court held that two factors in particular contributed to Yukos' demise and violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: ''1. The bailiff's choice of Yukos' principal subsidiary as the first target for auction, without considering the implications for the company's future: this dealt Yukos a 'fatal blow';
2. The Russian authorities were unyielding and inflexible in response to requests for time to pay and the bailiffs imposed additional fines amounting to €1.15 Bn, which had to be paid before the taxes, but the payment of which was prohibited under the freezing orders."
The court did however note that the tax assessments themselves were not considered disproportionate. It was agreed that there was not enough evidence to suggest that Yukos had been treated differently from other companies and so no violation of Article 14 was found. The court denied an allegation that Russia misused legal procedures to dismantle Yukos despite the court's nine-judge panel finding that Russia violated three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Both sides claimed victory over the ruling.
No monetary amount has been awarded after the European Court of Human Rights found the question of damages as "not ready for decision". Both parties have three months to reach a settlement.
The ECHR ruling became final on March 8, 2012 when the ECHR Grand Chamber did not accept the request of the Yukos Oil company to have its application to the court referred to the Grand Chamber.
The damages were being sought on behalf of all Yukos shareholders. There are around 55,000 named Yukos shareholders, some of which are funds representing a number of shareholders. On 31 July 2014, the ECHR awarded shareholders €1.9 billion, finding that Russia failed to strike a "fair balance" in its treatment of Yukos Oil Company. The ECHR also ruled Russia should pay 300,000 euros in costs and expenses, plus any tax. 
Arbitration proceedings by Yukos Capital
In 2006, Yukos Capital S.a.r.l., a Luxembourg-based company under two Dutch-registered protective foundations, obtained four ICC arbitration awards against Rosneft by a Russian tribunal in Moscow, totalling $245 million. The ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Arbitration of Russia.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued a final ruling in 2010 ordering Rosneft to pay $389.3 million in claims. As a result of the Dutch court decision, in 2010 Rosneft paid Yukos the value of the awards. However, it did not pay the $160 million post-award interest that had accrued since 2006. That same year, a UK court froze £425 million ($640 million) held in UK bank accounts by Rosneft to enforce the claim.
In June 2011, the English Commercial Court decided both issues in favour of Yukos, and Rosneft appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. In 2012, the Court of Appeal rejected Yukos Capital’s argument that the Dutch treatment of the Russian judgments binds the English courts in any respect, leaving Rosneft free to defend based on the Russian annulment decisions. In a separate part of the English judgment, the court held that the English Act of state doctrine does not impact certain arguments Yukos Capital seeks to make concerning the Russian annulment decisions. Yukos Capital had claimed interest on arbitration awards that were annulled by the Russian courts but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal nevertheless enforced.
In 2013, Yukos Capital asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to confirm a $421 million arbitration award against Rosneft. In 2014, a New York court ordered Samaraneftegaz, a former Yukos subsidiary now owned by Rosneft, to turn over assets to the US to satisfy a judgment to pay Yukos Capital $186 million and restrained it from transferring assets to either shareholders or affiliates. Samaraneftegaz has been refusing to pay the damages ever since 2007.
In 2005, GML Ltd. (formerly Group Menatep), which used to own 60 percent of Yukos Oil Company, filed a lawsuit under Energy Charter Treaty before a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In commencing the arbitration, the holding company availed itself of a provision in the Energy Charter Treaty that allows investors to arbitrate expropriation claims against signatory governments like Russia. The tribunal led by Canadian lawyer Yves Fortier ruled in 2009 that it would hear the case and that the Veteran Petroleum Trust, a corporate pension fund covering 30,000 ex-Yukos employees, as well as two companies that own Yukos shares — all represented by GML – can seek payments from the Russian government.
Previously the main shareholder in Yukos, GML is suing Russia for more than $100 billion; the core shareholders' stake was worth an estimated $25 billion at the time Yukos was dismantled, but the litigants are asking for a multiple of that amount to reflect Yukos’s estimated capitalisation today and interest. This makes the case the world’s largest-ever arbitration case.
Leonid Nevzlin is beneficial owner of just over 70 percent of GML, while four other ex-Yukos owners – Platon Lebedev, Mikhail Brudno, Vladimir Dubov and Vasily Shakhnovsky – each have just under 7.5 percent. Khodorkovsky had signed over his Yukos majority stake to Nevzlin during his trial in 2005.
In July 2014, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled for the majority shareholders, who were awarded $50 billion against Russia, around half of their claim. The court found unanimously that an expropriation had taken place, breaching Article 13(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty.
Two arbitration tribunals in Stockholm in 2010 and 2012 ruled in favor of Yukos investors from the United Kingdom and Spain who demanded compensation under bilateral investment protection treaties. In early 2006, RosInvestCo UK Ltd., a former minority shareholder of Yukos Oil Company and affiliate of Elliott Associates, initiated a suit against Russia on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. RosInvest had purchased its shares at a time when their value had already diminished significantly because of Russia's actions against Yukos, including auctioning off of Yukos' common shares in its principal production facilities.
In May 2006, the tribunal was constituted at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and included Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Sir Franklin Berman KCMG QC and the Rt Hon Lord Steyn. In 2010, the tribunal decided that the Russian state's measures constituted an unlawful expropriation because their effect was intended to “destroy Yukos and gain control over its assets”, thus marking the first instance where an international court or tribunal ruled on the merits of an expropriation claim filed against Russia by former Yukos investors. The court ruled for the Yukos shareholders and for the recovery of $3.5 million in damages from Russia.
The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce ruled that Russia used “illegitimate” tax bills to bankrupt and nationalize Yukos. The tribunal awarded the Spanish shareholders $2 million plus interest since November 2007, when the company was liquidated. This put the value of Yukos at the time at $62.1 billion, which would be $83 billion with interest added. The arbitration proceeding, Quasar de Valores SICAV S.A., et al. v. The Russian Federation, had been filed in March 2007 under the jurisdiction of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. A tribunal of three jurists issued a unanimous award: Jan Paulsson (chair) of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Toby Landau QC, of Essex Court Chambers; and Judge Charles N. Brower of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Yukos.|
- "Yukos case against Russia begins at European court". BBC News. March 4, 2010.
- "Yukos Creditors Told Russian Oil Company Is Doomed". Bloomberg. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- "Russian state oil company wins another Yukos auction". New York Times. August 8, 2007.
- Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly. "Resolution 1418 (2005)". Retrieved April 6, 2010.
- "Permanent Court of Arbitration: Final Awards Issued in 3 Arbitrations Between Former Shareholders of Yukos and the Russian Federation", pca-cpa.org; accessed July 30, 2014.
- "Court orders Russia to pay $50 billion for seizing Yukos assets", reuters.com, July 28, 2014; accessed July 30, 2014.
- "Hague court to rule on $50 billion Russian payout to Yukos shareholders", themoscowtimes.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- "Yukos shareholders awarded about $50 billion USD", nytimes.com; July 29, 2014.
- Hugh Fraser (2004-07-27). "Russia's oligarchs: Their risky routes to riches". BBC News (UK). Retrieved 2010-07-20. "Russia's most valuable assets were sold at bargain prices to insiders such as Mr Khodorkovsky.... Menatep bought Russia's second largest oil company, Yukos, for $300m. It also took on $2bn in debts, which made the price more realistic."
- Éric Toussaint (2005). Your money or your life: the tyranny of global finance. Haymarket Books. p. 366. ISBN 978-1-931859-18-9. "The Russian oligarchs used brutal and criminal methods like those used by the "robber barons" in the United States at the end of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
- Bruce Kapferer (2005). Oligarchs and oligopolies: new formations of global power. Berghahn Books. p. 59. ISBN 978-1-84545-174-5. "Using his [Khodororkovsky's] close contact with state officials, as well as illegal methods and violence, he saw his wealth and empire continue to grow until he challenged Putin."
- "Jail term for Yukos security boss". BBC News. March 30, 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- Privatization in Transition Economies: The Ongoing Story - ed. Ira W. Lieberman, Daniel J. Kopf, p. 112
- "Putin and the Oligarchs", Marshall Goldman, November/December 2004, published for the Council for Foreign Relations
- "Time to Rethink Privatization in Transition Economies?" by John Nellis, pub. in the International Monetary Fund's quarterly magazine (June 1999, vol 36, No. 2).
- "The Yukos Library". The Yukos Library. 2012-06-28. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- Yukos profile, washingtonpost.com, July 17, 2004; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Valuation of Yukos, atimes.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- A $50 Billion Bill for Putin's Aggression, by Leonid Bershidsky, bloombergview.com, July 28, 2014; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Parfitt, Tom (December 27, 2010). "WikiLeaks: rule of law in Mikhail Khodorkovsky trial merely 'gloss'". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved December 28, 2010.
- "Russian businessmen declared prisoners of conscience after convictions are upheld". Amnesty International. Retrieved September 29, 2011.
- European Court Rules That Khodorkovsky's Rights Were Violated, Radio Free Europe, May 31, 2011.
- "Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovskiy's detention in breach of the Convention' European Court of Human Rights press release May 31, 2011". Scribd.com. Retrieved December 22, 2013.
- O'Flynn, Kevin (May 31, 2011). ""Mikhail Khodorkovsky 'not a political prisoner', Human Rights court rules"". The Telegraph (UK). Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- "Mikhail Khodorkovsky case: European Court faults Russia". BBC (UK). May 31, 2011. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- "Russia's trial of oil magnate Khodorkovsky not political, court rules". Guardian (UK). May 31, 2011. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- Yukos Majority Shareholders Hit a $50 Billion Gusher (registration required), July 28, 2014, by Michael D. Goldhaber, americanlawyer.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Yukos valuation, nytimes.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Valuation of Yukos, washingtonpost.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Rosneft English-language website; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Goldhaber, Michael D. (July 1, 2010), "A Lifetime of Litigation", American Lawyer, retrieved 2010-07-19
- "Russian officials draw up a memorandum to the European Court". Kommersant. January 30, 2007. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
- "Manager of Yukos' "daughter" admitted tax evasion" (in Russian). September 12, 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- "Yukos advisers plan lobby offensive". BBC News. 2003-10-31. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- "Resolution 1418 (2005): The circumstances surrounding the arrest and prosecution of leading Yukos executives". Council of Europe. January 25, 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- "Profile:Mikhail Khodorkovsky". BBC News. June 16, 2004. Retrieved 2005-12-11.
- Erin E. Arvedlund (July 6, 2004). "Pressure Builds in Kremlin Vs. Oil Giant". New York Times. Retrieved 2005-12-11.
- Steven Lee Myers; Erin E. Arvedlund (October 28, 2003). "Oil Tycoon's Arrest Scares Russian Markets". New York Times. Retrieved 2005-12-11.
- "Russia: Just Who Is Baikalfinansgrup?". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. December 20, 2004. Retrieved 2010-08-21.
- "Yukos oil boosts Rosneft profits". BBC News. February 13, 2006. Retrieved 2010-08-20.
- "Creditors vote to bankrupt Yukos". BBC News. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- Moscow Times, February 4, 2005, Issue 3099, p. 5
- "Yukos Fugitives Feted in U.S.". February 4, 2005.
- "Top Yukos official Aleksanyan detained in Moscow". April 6, 2006. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- "YUKOS Lawyer Shows Signs of Three Crimes". Kommersant.com. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- Gregory L. White (September 21, 2011), European Rights Court Delivers Split Yukos Ruling(subscription required) Wall Street Journal.
- Irina Reznik, Henry Meyer and Alex Sazonov (July 14, 2014), Khodorkovsky Partners Turn Hunters as $140 Billion Rulings Near Washington Post.
- Michael Goldhaber (July 9, 2010), A lifetime of litigation - the fall of Yukos(subscription required) Legal Week.
- "Yukos' owners win arbitration award due to Russia's calculated expropriation", international-arbitration-attorney.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Saeed Shah (February 2, 2005), "Yukos wants international arbitration in tax dispute", The Independent.
- "European Court of Human Rights". Theyukoslibrary.com. 2004-04-23. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- "display":["1","dmdocnumber": ["863889"]} "Hearing OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v Russia 04.03.2010"]. European Court of Human Rights. 2010-04-03. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- "European Court of Human Rights". Echr.coe.int. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- "The Decision on Admissibility". Theyukoslibrary.com. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- Kramer, Andrew E. (March 4, 2010). "European Court Ready to Hear Yukos Case". The New York Times. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
- "European Court of Human Rights confirms that YUKOS Oil Company was treated unfairly by Russian courts". Yukos News Online. 2011-09-20. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- "European Court of Human Rights finds for Yukos Oil Company". Monckton.com. Retrieved 2012-12-13.[dead link]
- "European court delivers mixed ruling on Yukos". En.rian.ru. 2011-09-20. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- Vasilyeva, Nataliya (September 21, 2011). "Rivals both claim win over Yukos decision". The Independent (London, UK).
- "YUKOS comments in re March 8, 2012 European Court of Human Rights ruling". Theyukoslibrary.com. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- "European court rules Russia must pay Yukos shareholders 1.9 bln euros". reuters.com. 2014-07-31. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
- "Case of OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia". hudoc.echr.coe.int. European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
- Grant McCool (September 15, 2009), "Yukos Capital seeks U.S. court order on Rosneft", Reuters; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Grant McCool (September 15, 2009), Yukos Capital seeks U.S. court order on Rosneft Reuters; accessed July 20, 2014.
- Catherine Belton (June 26, 2010), Dutch court orders Rosneft payment(subscription required) Financial Times; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Maria Alcalde (September 19, 2012), English courts entitled to adjudicate on enforcement of awards annulled at seat DLA Piper International Arbitration Newsletter.
- Catherine Belton (June 26, 2010), "Dutch court orders Rosneft payment" (subscription required) Financial Times.
- Rosneft Obtains Favorable Decision in English Court of Appeal, Press release of June 27, 2012, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Grant McCool (September 15, 2009), Yukos Capital seeks U.S. court order on Rosneft Reuters.
- Kathrin Hille (January 12, 2014), The pursuit of Yukos’ wealth (subscription required) Financial Times.
- Irina Reznik, Henry Meyer & Alex Sazonov (July 14, 2014), Khodorkovsky Partners Turn Hunters as $140 Billion Rulings Near Washington Post.
- Jason Bush (December 1, 2009), Yukos returns to haunt Russia Reuters.
- Neil Buckley (July 23, 2014), Yukos investors await ruling in $100bn claim against Russia(subscription required) Financial Times.
- Andrew E. Kramer (December 1, 2009), "A Victory for Holders of Yukos", New York Times; accessed July 30, 2014.
- James Marson (July 27, 2012), "Yukos Investors Win Over $2 Million in Damages from Russia" (subscription required) Wall Street Journal.
- Henry Meyer and Irina Reznik (July 23, 2014), "Putin's Ukraine Woes Compounded by $103 Billion Yukos Claim", Bloomberg.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Jason Bush (December 1, 2009), "Yukos returns to haunt Russia", Reuters; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Kathrin Hille (January 12, 2014), The pursuit of Yukos’ wealth(subscription required) Financial Times.
- Megan Davies and Douglas Busvine (February 12, 2014), With Khodorkovsky out, Yukos investors fight on Reuters.
- Nikita Jolkver (July 25, 2014), Ex-Yukos-Eigner klagen gegen Russland, Deutsche Welle; accessed July 30, 2014. (German)
- Henry Meyer and Alex Sazonov (June 20, 2014), "Yukos Owners Are Confident as Ruling on $100 Billion Claim Nears", businessweek.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Neil Buckley (July 23, 2014), "Yukos investors await ruling in $100bn claim against Russia" (subscription required) Financial Times; accessed July 30, 2014.
- "Hague court awards $50 bn compensation to Yukos shareholders". russiaherald.com. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
- Michael Goldhaber (July 9, 2010), "A lifetime of litigation - the fall of Yukos", legalweek.com; accessed July 30, 2014.
- "World Investment Treaty Arbitration Update", by Lisa Richman (Washington, D.C.), Hugh A. Carlson, (London, UK), Sabine Konrad (Frankfurt), May 2011, K&L Gates.
- "The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce finds Russia responsible for the bankruptcy of YUKOS and liable to foreign investors", Press release of December 27, 2010, Timofeev, Vahrenwald & Partners LLP, Moscow; accessed July 30, 2014.
- Michael Goldhaber (July 9, 2010), "A lifetime of litigation - the fall of Yukos" (subscription required) Legal Week.
- James Marson (July 27, 2012), "Yukos Investors Win Over $2 Million in Damages from Russia" (subscription required) Wall Street Journal.
- Irmgard Marboe, "Quasar de Valores SICAV SA and others v The Russian Federation", ICSID Review (Fall 2013) 28 (2): 247-253.
- Henry Meyer and Stepan Kravchenko (July 26, 2012), "Yukos Investors Win Tribunal Award From Russia, Lawyers Say", bloomberg.com; accessed July 31, 2014.
- James Marson (July 27, 2012), Yukos Investors Win Over $2 Million in Damages from Russia(subscription required) Wall Street Journal.
Global Arbitration Review
- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/global/02yukos.html *http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202436033122&Report_Shearman__Sterling_Wins_Round_for_Yukos_Shareholders
- Further information about the current YUKOS Oil Company claim in the European Court of Human Rights
- Report: The Yukos Affair, its Motives and Implications (Centre for Eastern Studies)
- Khodorkovsky verdict: Business views Browder and Kraus
- Mysterious bidder pays $9.4 billion for Yukos unit(subscription required)
- Analysis: Gazprom's losing bid for Yukos? – (United Press International)
- Knight Ridder: Russia's dismantling of Yukos seen as part of a troubling trend
- Arrested oil tycoon passed shares to banker Jacob Rothschild – *Matteo M. Winkler, Arbitration without Privity and the Russian Oil: The Yukos Case before the Houston Court, already pub'ed in 27 U. PA. J. INT’L ECON. L. 115–153 (2006)