Summary

Respondent Russian Federation's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Stay

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Russian Federation ("RF") moves to stay this action pending the French Proceedings (defined herein) to revise or set aside the $1.1 billion arbitral award dated November 26, 2018 ("Award"), which Petitioner JSC Oschadbank ("Oschadbank") waited four years, three months, and twenty-three days after it was issued to confirm in the U.S. by filing its present Petition in this Court - well outside the three-year period for seeking confirmation of a foreign award under 9 U.S.C. §207. Courts routinely grant stays in the FSIA §1605(a)(6) context pending set-aside proceedings under their inherent authority based on traditional standards, with some considering the Europcar Italia, S.P.A. v. Maiellano Tours, 156 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1998) factors.

At the September 18, 2024 hearing on the RF's motion to stay, which resulted in the first stay, this Court "bet" that it would continue the stay if the Paris Court of Appeal ("COA") granted the RF's set-aside application in France on remand from the Cassation Court but discontinue the stay if the application was denied.2 While the application was denied, see July 1, 2025 COA Decision ("2025 COA Set-Aside Decision"), resulting in the first stay being lifted, two significant recent developments calling into question the validity of the Award now strongly counsel a further stay pending resolution of the French Proceedings.

Revision Proceeding: On June 23, 2026, the COA issued a decision ("2026 COA Revision Decision") annulling the December 11, 2023 Tribunal's dismissal of the RF's 2019 Révision application to set aside the Award, claiming Oschadbank concealing that its investments were made before January 1, 1992, not after, as required by BIT Article 12, with newly discovered evidence conclusively proving this ("Revision Action"). The COA found that actions of arbitrator Charles N. Brower, appointed by Oschadbank, "cannot fail to raise doubts. .. as to [Brower's] impartiality and thus calls into question the validity of the composition of the arbitral tribunal."

2026 COA Revision Decision, ¶¶49-50, Ex. AP-7. The renewed Revision Action before an arbitration tribunal will challenge the validity of the Award based on Oschadbank concealing its investment was made before January 1, 1992 and new documents conclusively establishing this.

If successful, the tribunal will revoke the Award and issue a new one.

Cassation Proceeding: On July 1, 2026, the RF filed its appellate brief before the French Cassation Court, appealing the 2025 COA Set-Aside Decision ("2026 Cassation Court Appeal"), Ex. AP-6. On July 7, in response to the RF's request, Oschadbank agreed to stay enforcement proceedings on the Award in the UK pending resolution of the 2026 Cassation Court Appeal.

See Goldberg Affidavit, Ex. A; July 8, 2026 Quinn Emanuel Letter, Ex. B; July 13, 2026 Consent Order, Ex. C. The 2026 Cassation Court Appeal may result in vacating the Award, particularly given that the 2026 COA Revision Decision raises the distinct possibility that Brower tainted the entire arbitration. If the Cassation Court proceedings support a stay in the UK--to which Oschadbank agreed--they equally support a stay here.

First, the foregoing developments warrant a stay under the traditional standards. Judicial economy will be served, since this Court will not have to expend further resources if the Revision Proceeding and the Cassation Proceeding ("French Proceedings") revise or set aside the Award, rendering this proceeding moot. The balance of harms likewise favors a stay because the RF is a foreign sovereign entitled to protection from unnecessary burden of litigation under FSIA and should not have to litigate the Award in two separate jurisdictions and three separation proceedings, while Oschadbank suffers no harm pending the French Proceedings' conclusion.

Further, if the Award is prematurely enforced, but later revised or set aside in France, the RF will be burdened by having to reverse enforcement and recover assets that may have been seized.

Second, alternatively, a stay is warranted under the Europcar factors based on judicial economy, the balance of harms, and the difficulties which may arise if the Award is recognized here, but later revised or set aside in France, as described above. And, comity is best served by allowing the courts in France, Oschadbank's selected jurisdiction, to conclude revision and set- aside proceedings, which are integral to the investor-state dispute-resolution process.

In sum, this action, which was not filed until March 2023, should be stayed pending completion of potentially dispositive French Proceedings filed in 2019, three and a half years before. The Court may wish to first hear argument on the Motion to Stay before that on the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss ("CMTD") at the August 17, 2026 hearing, as it did at the September 18, 2024 hearing, which resulted in the original stay.

...