PCA Case No. AA 226 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL .

PCA Case No. AA 226IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 26 OF THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATYAND THE 1976 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES- between -HULLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED (CYPRUS)- and -THE RUSSIAN FEDERATIONFINAL AWARD18 July 2014TribunalThe Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC, ChairmanDr. Charles PoncetJudge Stephen M. SchwebelMr. Martin J. Valasek, Assistant to the TribunalMr. Brooks W. Daly, Secretary to the TribunalMs. Judith Levine, Assistant Secretary to the TribunalRegistryPermanent Court of ArbitrationRepresenting Claimant:Representing Respondent:Professor Emmanuel GaillardDr. Yas BanifatemiMs. Jennifer YounanSHEARMAN & STERLING LLPDr. Claudia AnnackerMr. Lawrence B. FriedmanMr. David G. SabelMr. Matthew D. SlaterMr. William B. McGurnMr. J. Cameron MurphyCLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLPMr. Michael S. GoldbergMr. Jay L. AlexanderDr. Johannes KoeppMr. Alejandro A. EscobarBAKER BOTTS LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF DEFINED TERMS. xiiiINTRODUCTION . 1I.II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY . 2A.COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION . 2B.CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL . 3C.PRELIMINARY PHASE ON JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY . 4D.BIFURCATION AND OTHER SCHEDULING MATTERS. 5E.DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY . 6F.HEARING ON THE MERITS . 8G.POST-HEARING PROCEDURES . 11FACTUAL BACKGROUND . 12A.III.IV.THE PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS . 131.Claimants and Related Entities . 132.Respondent . 13B.OAO YUKOS OIL COMPANY . 13C.THE RUSSIAN LOW-TAX REGION PROGRAM . 14D.CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS . 16E.ADDITIONAL MEASURES. 171.Alleged Frustration of Merger Between Yukos and Sibneft . 182.Tax Reassessments for Years 2000–2004 . 183.Auction of YNG . 194.Bankruptcy Proceedings . 205.Withdrawal of PwC’s Audits . 20PARTIES’ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS . 20A.CLAIMANTS’ SKELETON ARGUMENTS . 21B.RESPONDENT’S SKELETON ARGUMENTS . 34PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF . 48A.RELIEF REQUESTED BY CLAIMANTS . 48B.RELIEF REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT. 48-i-

V.VI.APPLICABLE LAW. 49A.PROCEDURAL LAW . 49B.SUBSTANTIVE LAW . 491.Energy Charter Treaty . 492.Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties . 53SUMMARY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY . 54A.B.CLAIMANTS’ WITNESSES . 551.Mr. Jacques Kosciusko-Morizet . 552.Mr. Vladimir Dubov . 573.Mr. Frank Rieger . 594.Dr. Andrei Illarionov . 615.Mr. Leonid Nevzlin . 646.Mr. Bruce Misamore . 677.Mr. Steven Theede . 698.Mr. Brent Kaczmarek . 729.Mr. Philip Baker QC . 7310.Mr. Yuri Schmidt . 7411.Dr. Sergei Kovalev. 75RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES . 761.Professor James Dow . 762.Mr. Oleg Y. Konnov . 783.Professor Reinier Kraakman . 814.Professor H. David Rosenbloom . 835.Professor Thomas Z. Lys . 856.Ms. Felicity Cullen QC . 877.Mr. Dale Hart . 888.Mr. Polyvios Polyviou . 899.Mr. John Ellison . 9010.Mr. Raymond Gross . 9111.Professor Dr. Albert Jan van den Berg. 93- ii -

12.C.Professor Stef van Weeghel . 94THE SO-CALLED “EMPTY CHAIRS” . 951.Individuals that Claimants Wished were Available for Examination . 962.Individuals that Respondent Wished were Available for Examination . 97VII. ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS . 98VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD . 102A.THE TAX OPTIMIZATION SCHEME . 1021.Introduction . 1022.The Structure of the Tax Optimization Scheme . 1033.The Legal Framework of the Tax Optimization Scheme . 1054.5.B.(a)The Low-Tax Region Program . 105(b)Anti-Abuse Decisions and Doctrines Promulgated by Russia’s FederalCourts . 107The History of the Yukos Trading Entities before 2003 . 125(a)Mordovia . 125(b)Kalmykia . 138(c)Lesnoy and Trekhgorny. 140(d)Sarov. 158(e)Baikonur . 159(f)Evenkia . 160Tribunal’s Observations . 164THE TAX ASSESSMENTS STARTING IN DECEMBER 2003 . 1701.Introduction . 1702.Chronology of the Tax Assessments and Related Decisions . 1743.(a)The 2000 Decision. 175(b)The 2001 Decision. 183(c)The 2002 Decision. 186(d)The 2003 Decision. 189(e)The 2004 Decision. 191(f)Observation . 192The Taxes Assessed Against Yukos . 192- iii -

C.Profit Tax and Other Revenue-based Taxes . 192(b)VAT . 1984.The Fines Assessed Against Yukos . 2015.Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 203(a)Profit Tax and Other Revenue-Based Taxes . 204(b)VAT . 219(c)Fines . 239(d)Concluding Observations . 255HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION AND ARRESTS . 2571.Introduction . 2572.Chronology of Facts . 2583.D.(a)(a)Yukos Grows; Mr. Khodorkovsky Becomes More Politically Engaged;Yukos Leaders Receive Warnings . 258(b)Prosecutor General Launches Investigations Involving Searches andSeizures . 260(c)Arrest and Trial of Mr. Khodorkovsky; Flight from Russia of HisAssociates . 263(d)Complaints of Further Harassment and Intimidation of Yukos Executives,Employees, Lawyers and External Advisers . 265(e)Second Trial of Mr. Khodorkovsky; Allegations of ContinuingHarassment and Intimidation. 269Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 270(a)Are Claimants’ Allegations about a Campaign of Harassment Credible? . 271(b)Were the Actions of the Russian Federation Justified as Legitimate LawEnforcement Measures? . 274(c)Did the Events Complained of Impact Claimants’ Investments or wasYukos Able to Carry on Unaffected? . 276THE UNWINDING OF THE YUKOS–SIBNEFT MERGER . 2791.Introduction . 2792.Chronology . 281(a)Merger is Announced; NYSE Listing is Put on Hold; Steps are Taken toComplete Merger. 281(b)Mr. Khodorkovsky is Arrested; Yukos Continues with Merger; Sibneft hasSecond Thoughts . 283- iv -

3.E.Russian Courts Invalidate the Share Exchange Agreement . 285(d)Russian Federation Ultimately Acquires Sibneft via Gazprom. 287Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 287(a)Was Yukos’ NYSE Listing Put on Hold Because of the Yukos SibneftMerger or Fears of Exposing Yukos’ Tax Optimization Scheme? . 287(b)Was the 2003 Interim Dividend a Component of the Yukos SibneftMerger or a Means to Siphon Funds out of Russia? . 289(c)Was the Unwinding of the Merger Caused by the Russian Federation? . 292ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE . 2981.Introduction . 2982.Yukos’ Settlement Offers (and the Russian Federation’s Replies) . 3003.F.(c)(a)Proposals Made to the Bailiffs . 302(b)Proposals for a Global Settlement Conveyed by Mr. Chrétien . 304(c)Requests for a Deferral or Payment in Instalments . 306(d)Other Proposals . 307Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 308(a)Did Yukos Contribute to its Own Demise by Failing to Discharge TaxDebt in the Amount of USD 9 Billion in the First Quarter of 2004? . 308(b)Did Yukos’ Settlement Offers Constitute Real Alternatives toEnforcement? . 312THE AUCTION OF YNG . 3221.Introduction . 3222.Chronology . 3243.(a)Yukos’ Shares in YNG are Seized and the Government Announces theywill be Sold; Yukos Brings Unsuccessful Court Challenges . 325(b)YNG is Valued for Auction while its Tax Liabilities Rapidly Escalate . 325(c)Yukos Tries to Prevent the Auction; Preparations Proceed; an EntityNamed Baikal is Created to Purchase YNG . 327(d)After a 10-Minute Auction, the Successful Bidder Baikal is Sold to StateOwned Rosneft; a “Monumental Bargain”; the “State, Looking After itsOwn Interests” . 329(e)Once it is State-Owned, YNG’s Fate Improves, with Reductions in TaxLiabilities and a Dramatic Increase in Value . 330Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 331-v-

G.(b)Who was Behind Baikal and were They a Front for the Russian State? . 336(c)What were Yukos’ Prospects for Survival Once it Lost its Core Asset?. 3401.Introduction . 3422.Chronology . 343(a)The Initiation of the Bankruptcy . 343(b)The Treatment of Bankruptcy Claims; the Creditors’ Meeting; theDeclaration of Yukos’ Bankruptcy. 349(c)The Liquidation of Yukos’ Remaining Assets . 352Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 355(a)Why was the Bankruptcy Initiated and Who was Truly Behind It? . 356(b)Were the Bankruptcy Proceedings Conducted Properly and Fairly? . 368THE WITHDRAWAL OF PWC’S AUDIT OPINIONS . 3771.Introduction . 3772.Chronology . 3793.IX.Did the Auction Price Reflect the True Value of YNG; If not, was EitherParty Responsible for the Price Reduction? . 332THE BANKRUPTCY OF YUKOS . 3423.H.(a)(a)PwC Serves as Both Auditor and Consultant to Yukos. 379(b)PwC Responds to the Massive Tax Reassessments against Yukos . 380(c)PwC Faces Mounting Pressure from the Russian Federation around theSame Time as Mr. Khodorkovsky’s Second Trial Starts . 382(d)PwC’s “Volte-Face” in Withdrawing the Yukos Audits; ImprovedTreatment and Continued Pressures in the Russian Federation . 385Parties’ Arguments and Tribunal’s Observations . 389(a)Did PwC Withdraw its Audits because it was under Pressure from theRussian Government? . 389(b)Were the Grounds Provided by PwC in its Withdrawal Letter Contrived orCredible? . 391(c)Concluding Observations . 399PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS . 401A.ARE ALL OR SOME OF THE CLAIMS BARRED BY THE “FORK-IN-THE-ROAD” PROVISION OFTHE ECT? . 4021.Introduction . 402- vi -

B.2.Parties’ Positions . 4033.Tribunal’s Decision . 406“UNCLEAN HANDS” (DID CLAIMANTS ACT ILLEGALLY SO AS TO DEPRIVE THEM OFPROTECTION UNDER THE ECT?) . 4061.Introduction . 4062.Claimants’ Alleged “Unclean Hands” . 4083.4.C.(a)Conduct Related to the Acquisition of Yukos and the SubsequentConsolidation of Control over Yukos and its Subsidiaries . 409(b)Conduct Related to the Cyprus-Russia DTA. 412(c)Conduct Related to the Tax Optimization Scheme . 416(d)Actions Taken in Hindrance of the Enforcement of Russia’s Tax Claims . 416Parties’ Positions Regarding the Impact of Claimants’ Allegedly “UncleanHands” on this Arbitration . 418(a)Respondent’s Position . 418(b)Claimants’ Position . 423Tribunal’s Decision . 428(a)Can a Clean Hands Principle or Legality Requirement be Read into theECT? . 429(b)Does the “Clean Hands” Doctrine Constitute a “General Principle of LawRecognized by Civilized Nations”? . 431(c)Would any Instances of Claimants’ Alleged “Bad Faith and Illegal”Conduct be Caught by a Legality Requirement Read into the ECT? . 433(d)Conclusion . 435RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE ECT . 4351.Introduction . 4352.Claimants’ Position . 4373.Respondent’s Position . 4404.Tribunal’s Decision . 446(a)Introduction . 446(b)First Reason: Assuming the Carve-Out Applies, So Does the Claw-Back,and Any Referral to the Competent Tax Authorities Would Clearly havebeen Futile . 448(c)Second Reason: The Carve-Out Does Not Apply . 453(d)Conclusion . 457- vii -

X.LIABILITY . 457A.B.ATTRIBUTION . 4581.Claimants’ Position . 4582.Respondent’s Position . 4603.Tribunal’s Decision on Attribution . 462ARTICLE 10 OF THE ECT . 4671.Introduction . 4672.Applicable Legal Standards under Article 10(1) of the ECT . 4683.C.(a)Claimants’ Position . 468(b)Respondent’s Position . 472Did Respondent Accord Claimants’ Investments the Standard of TreatmentRequired by Article 10(1) of the ECT? . 475(a)Claimants’ Position . 475(b)Respondent’s Position . 480ARTICLE 13 OF THE ECT . 4811.Introduction . 4812.Applicable Legal Standards under Article 13 of the ECT . 4823.4.(a)Claimants’ Position . 482(b)Respondent’s Position . 485Did Respondent’s Actions Constitute Expropriation (or “Measures HavingEffect Equivalent to Nationalization or Expropriation”) within the Meaning ofArticle 13(1) of the ECT? . 488(a)Claimants’ Position . 488(b)Respondent’s Position . 489If Respondent’s Actions Constitute Expropriation, Has Respondent Met theCriteria for a Lawful Expropriation under Article 13(1) of the ECT? . 492(a)Claimants’ Position . 492(b)Respondent’s Position . 493D.TRIBUNAL’S DECISION ON BREACH OF THE ECT . 495E.CONTRIBUTORY FAULT . 5001.Introduction . 5002.Contributory Fault as Applied in Other Cases . 502- viii -

3.4.XI.Tribunal’s Analysis . 503(a)Conduct of Yukos in Some of the Low-Tax Regions . 503(b)Conduct of Yukos under the Cyprus-Russia DTA . 505(c)Conduct of Yukos in Connection with YNG Auction . 506(d)Conduct of Yukos in Connection with its Bankruptcy (Non-Payment of theA Loan) .

HULLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED (CYPRUS) - and - THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FINAL AWARD 18 July 2014 Tribunal The Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC, Chairman Dr. Charles Poncet Judge Stephen M. Schwebel Mr. Martin J. Valasek, Assistant to the Tribunal Mr. Brooks W. Daly, Secretary to the Tribunal Ms. Judith Levine, Assistant Secretary to the Tribunal