Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal Rejects Karapetyan Family and Liormand Holdings’ Mediation Petition

The Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal has delivered a decisive ruling in the dispute involving Liormand Holdings Limited and members of the Karapetyan family against the Republic of Armenia. On December 24, 2025, the tribunal rejected in full the mediation petition brought by the applicants, effectively dismissing a package of claims tied to a government decision and the operation of the entity known by the acronym ՀԷՑ (AEN) in Armenian filings. The decision marks a procedural milestone, preserving the integrity of the arbitration process and delineating the path forward for a merits-based examination of the underlying disputes.

The applicants had sought several remedies through the arbitration: first, a declaration that Armenia had not complied with government decision EA 2025/121, issued on July 22, 2025; second, the restoration of the AEN license along with the powers accorded to the body’s governance organs; and third, an injunction to prevent the forced sale of AEN shares. In substance, the petition framed a challenge to state actions affecting control and regulatory authority over AEN, a key player in Armenia’s energy sector. The tribunal’s ruling rejected these requests as unfounded, finding insufficient grounds to modify the status quo or to halt asset transactions at this stage of the proceedings.

The decision also underlines that the arbitration process will continue to operate with full procedural integrity. By dismissing the mediation petition, the tribunal maintained that all future pronouncements will be grounded in a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence presented by the parties. The tribunal did not close the door to future decisions; rather, it signaled that any further steps would depend on the evidence gathered and arguments advanced through the course of the arbitration. The continuation of the arbitration process preserves the rights of both sides to present evidence and pursue a resolution that reflects the merits of the dispute rather than a procedural shortcut.

The Armenian government welcomed the tribunal’s ruling, with a government spokesperson stressing that the decision preserves the normal, rules-based course of the dispute resolution process. Officials also reaffirmed Armenia’s commitment to participate in the arbitration with high professional standards and to maintain constructive cooperation with the plaintiffs throughout the proceedings. The government’s response reflects a broader stance toward investor-state issues in the energy sector, emphasizing due process and a predictable legal framework for all parties involved. This stance is consistent with Armenia’s broader objective of maintaining stability for foreign and domestic investors while safeguarding the state’s regulatory prerogatives.

Context for the timing of the dispute is important. In July 2025, the Karapetyan defense team publicly announced that Samvel Karapetyan had secured a ruling in an international court on an aspect of the case—specifically, provisional measures intended to safeguard certain interests pending a final decision. That update referred to interim relief, not a final resolution of the broader Armenian-Arbitral dispute. The Stockholm tribunal’s December 24 ruling does not adjudicate the substantive merits of the case but addresses the procedural posture of the mediation petition. The parties thus continue to present their evidence and legal arguments within the ongoing arbitration, with subsequent milestones likely to hinge on the strength and relevance of the evidence rather than on early procedural wins elsewhere.

For Armenia, the decision reinforces confidence in a controlled, evidence-based arbitration process as a mechanism for resolving complex disputes that touch national policy and the regulation of critical energy assets. For Liormand Holdings Limited and the Karapetyan siblings, while a procedural win may be elusive at this stage, the case remains active and subject to future adjudications as evidence accumulates. Within the Armenian context, the dispute reflects the broader dynamic of balancing government regulatory prerogatives with investor rights in a modern market economy. As the arbitration advances, stakeholders will observe how the tribunal weighs competing interests—state policy, corporate governance considerations, and investor protections—in a dispute that sits at the intersection of policy and market operations.

The decision underscores the delicate balance between government policy, governance, and investor rights in Armenia’s energy sector, indicating that future arbitral rulings will depend on evidence and procedural rigor rather than early wins, and maintaining stability for stakeholders as the dispute continues to move through a structured, evidence-based process.