DOCSLIB.ORG

Berezovsky-Judgment.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2463 (Comm) Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, London EC4A 1NL Date: 31st August 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case No: 2007 Folio 942 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim Nos: HC08C03549; HC09C00494; CHANCERY DIVISION HC09C00711 Before: MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER, DBE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Boris Abramovich Berezovsky Claimant - and - Roman Arkadievich Abramovich Defendant Boris Abramovich Berezovsky Claimant - and - Hine & Others Defendants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Laurence Rabinowitz Esq, QC, Richard Gillis Esq, QC, Roger Masefield Esq, Simon Colton Esq, Henry Forbes-Smith Esq, Sebastian Isaac Esq, Alexander Milner Esq, and Ms. Nehali Shah (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) for the Claimant Jonathan Sumption Esq, QC, Miss Helen Davies QC, Daniel Jowell Esq, QC, Andrew Henshaw Esq, Richard Eschwege Esq, Edward Harrison Esq and Craig Morrison Esq (instructed by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) for the Defendant Ali Malek Esq, QC, Ms. Sonia Tolaney QC, and Ms. Anne Jeavons (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) appeared for the Anisimov Defendants to the Chancery Actions David Mumford Esq (instructed by Macfarlanes LLP) appeared for the Salford Defendants to the Chancery Actions Jonathan Adkin Esq and Watson Pringle Esq (instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) appeared for the Family Defendants to the Chancery Actions Hearing dates: 3rd – 7th October 2011; 10th – 13th October 2011; 17th – 19th October 2011; 24th & 28th October 2011; 31st October – 4th November 2011; 7th – 10th November 2011; 14th - 18th November 2011; 21st – 23 November 2011; 28th November – 2nd December 2011; 5th December 2011; 19th & 20th December 2011; 17th – 19th January 2012. Further written submissions: 26th January 2012; 1st February 2012; 2nd February 2012; 7th February 2012; 6th March 2012; 13th March 2012; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER, DBE MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER, DBE Berezovsky v Abramovich Approved Judgment Berezovsky v Hine & Others Section I - Introduction .........................................................................................................11 The Sibneft claim...........................................................................................................11 The RusAl claim ............................................................................................................13 Summary of Mr. Abramovich’s defence in relation to the Sibneft claim ...................15 Summary of Mr. Abramovich’s defence in relation to the RusAl claim .....................16 Connection between the two claims ..............................................................................17 Procedural chronology of the Commercial court action .............................................18 Section II - The issues which the court has to determine in the Commercial court action ..................................................................................................................................................19 Agreed List of Issues .....................................................................................................19 Liability issues only to be determined ...........................................................................19 The liability issues .........................................................................................................19 A. Sibneft...................................................................................................................19 B. RusAl ....................................................................................................................20 Section III - The Chancery actions.......................................................................................21 The claims made in the Chancery actions....................................................................21 The Overlap Issues ........................................................................................................22 Section IV - Representation ..................................................................................................24 Section V - Documentation and case materials ...................................................................24 Section VI - Factual background..........................................................................................25 Russian context..............................................................................................................25 Relevant events in Russia from late 1980s to May 2000 ..............................................26 Krysha ............................................................................................................................28 Mr. Berezovsky’s personal and business history up to 1994 - the relevant corporate entities and associates involved.....................................................................................32 Mr. Berezovsky’s personal background........................................................................32 LogoVAZ........................................................................................................................32 Anros and Forus............................................................................................................33 Consolidated Bank.........................................................................................................33 Andava ...........................................................................................................................34 Mr. Berezovsky’s political career..................................................................................34 Mr. Berezovsky’s business and political contacts ........................................................35 The LogoVAZ club ........................................................................................................36 ORT ................................................................................................................................37 Mr. Berezovsky’s public profile.....................................................................................38 The alleged joint venture between Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili.............38 Additional relevant events in relation to Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili not directly connected with the issues in the case...............................................................39 Section VII - Approach to the evidence ...............................................................................41 Significant features of the case.....................................................................................41 Credibility of the principal witnesses ............................................................................43 Mr. Berezovsky ..............................................................................................................43 The evidence of Mr. Berezovsky’s witnesses ................................................................51 Mr. Abramovich’s evidence...........................................................................................52 Mr. Abramovich’s witnesses..........................................................................................54 Allegations of non-disclosure........................................................................................55 The absence of certain witnesses ..................................................................................55 Mr. Anisimov .................................................................................................................56 Mr. Anisimov’s witnesses ..............................................................................................56 Executive Summary and conclusion on credibility......................................................56 MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER, DBE Berezovsky v Abramovich Approved Judgment Berezovsky v Hine & Others Section VIII - Determination of Issue A1 ............................................................................56 Were agreements made, in 1995 and 1996, between Mr. Abramovich on the one hand and Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili on the other in regard to a 50:50 share in the interests of Sibneft?.............................................................................................56 Introduction ...................................................................................................................56 Common ground in relation to the 1995 arrangements, and areas of dispute ...........57 Executive summary of my conclusion on Issue A1......................................................58 Mr. Berezovsky’s pleaded case about the making of the alleged 1995 Agreement.....60 Mr. Berezovsky’s pleaded case about the making of the alleged 1996 Agreement.....61 Mr. Berezovsky’s evidence about the making of the alleged 1995 Agreement ...........62 The alleged partnership allegation ...............................................................................63 The alleged share of “the profits”.................................................................................65
Recommended publications
  • The Killing of William Browder

    The Killing of William Browder

    THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER THE KILLING OF WILLIAM BROWDER Bill Browder, the fa lse crusader for justice and human rights and the self - styled No. 1 enemy of Vladimir Putin has perpetrated a brazen and dangerous deception upon the Weste rn world. This book traces the anatomy of this deception, unmasking the powerful forces that are pushing the West ern world toward yet another great war with Russia. ALEX KRAINER EQUILIBRIUM MONACO First published in Monaco in 20 17 Copyright © 201 7 by Alex Krainer ISBN 978 - 2 - 9556923 - 2 - 5 Material contained in this book may be reproduced with permission from its author and/or publisher, except for attributed brief quotations Cover page design, content editing a nd copy editing by Alex Krainer. Set in Times New Roman, book title in Imprint MT shadow To the people of Russia and the United States wh o together, hold the keys to the future of humanity. Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day. Thomas Jefferson Table of Contents 1. Bill Browder and I ................................ ................................ ............... 1 Browder’s 2005 presentation in Monaco ................................ .............. 2 Harvard club presentation in 2010 ................................ ........................ 3 Ru ssophobia and Putin - bashing in the West ................................ ......... 4 Red notice ................................ ................................ ............................ 6 Reading
  • Prospectus Front and Back 2016

    Prospectus Front and Back 2016

    IMPORTANT NOTICE THE PROSPECTUS (THE “PROSPECTUS”) FOLLOWING THIS PAGE MAY ONLY BE DISTRIBUTED TO PERSONS WHO ARE EITHER (1) QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYERS (“QIBs”) WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 144A (“RULE 144A”) UNDER THE U.S. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR (2) NON-U.S. PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STAT ES WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION S (“REGULATION S”) UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT. IMPORTANT: You must read the following before continuing. The following applies to the Prospectus following this page, and you are therefore advised to read this carefully before reading, accessing or making any other use of this document. In accessing the Prospectus, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, including any modifications to them any time you receive any information from us as a result of such access. RESTRICTIONS: NOTHING IN THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICITAT ION OF AN OFFER TO BUY THE NOTES IN ANY JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DO SO. ANY NOTE TO BE ISSUED HAS NOT BEEN AND WILL NOT BE REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, OR WITH ANY SECURITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER JURISDICTION. THE NOTES MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITHIN THE UNITED STAT ES OR TO, OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OR BENEFIT OF, U.S. PERSONS (AS DEFINED IN REGULATION S) EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM, OR IN A TRANSACTION NOT SUBJECT TO, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL SECURITIES LAWS.
  • The Russia You Never Met

    The Russia You Never Met

    The Russia You Never Met MATT BIVENS AND JONAS BERNSTEIN fter staggering to reelection in summer 1996, President Boris Yeltsin A announced what had long been obvious: that he had a bad heart and needed surgery. Then he disappeared from view, leaving his prime minister, Viktor Cher- nomyrdin, and his chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, to mind the Kremlin. For the next few months, Russians would tune in the morning news to learn if the presi- dent was still alive. Evenings they would tune in Chubais and Chernomyrdin to hear about a national emergency—no one was paying their taxes. Summer turned to autumn, but as Yeltsin’s by-pass operation approached, strange things began to happen. Chubais and Chernomyrdin suddenly announced the creation of a new body, the Cheka, to help the government collect taxes. In Lenin’s day, the Cheka was the secret police force—the forerunner of the KGB— that, among other things, forcibly wrested food and money from the peasantry and drove some of them into collective farms or concentration camps. Chubais made no apologies, saying that he had chosen such a historically weighted name to communicate the seriousness of the tax emergency.1 Western governments nod- ded their collective heads in solemn agreement. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both confirmed that Russia was experiencing a tax collec- tion emergency and insisted that serious steps be taken.2 Never mind that the Russian government had been granting enormous tax breaks to the politically connected, including billions to Chernomyrdin’s favorite, Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly,3 and around $1 billion to Chubais’s favorite, Uneximbank,4 never mind the horrendous corruption that had been bleeding the treasury dry for years, or the nihilistic and pointless (and expensive) destruction of Chechnya.
  • Privatization in Russia: Catalyst for the Elite

    Privatization in Russia: Catalyst for the Elite

    PRIVATIZATION IN RUSSIA: CATALYST FOR THE ELITE VIRGINIE COULLOUDON During the fall of 1997, the Russian press exposed a corruption scandal in- volving First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoli Chubais, and several other high- ranking officials of the Russian government.' In a familiar scenario, news organizations run by several bankers involved in the privatization process published compromising material that prompted the dismissal of the politi- 2 cians on bribery charges. The main significance of the so-called "Chubais affair" is not that it pro- vides further evidence of corruption in Russia. Rather, it underscores the im- portance of the scandal's timing in light of the prevailing economic environment and privatization policy. It shows how deliberate this political campaign was in removing a rival on the eve of the privatization of Rosneft, Russia's only remaining state-owned oil and gas company. The history of privatization in Russia is riddled with scandals, revealing the critical nature of the struggle for state funding in Russia today. At stake is influence over defining the rules of the political game. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how privatization in Russia gave birth to an oligarchic re- gime and how, paradoxically, it would eventually destroy that very oligar- chy. This article intends to study how privatization influenced the creation of the present elite structure and how it may further transform Russian decision making in the foreseeable future. Privatization is generally seen as a prerequisite to a market economy, which in turn is considered a sine qua non to establishing a democratic regime. But some Russian analysts and political leaders disagree with this approach.
  • Georgia's 2008 Presidential Election

    Georgia's 2008 Presidential Election

    Election Observation Report: Georgia’s 2008 Presidential Elections Election Observation Report: Georgia’s saarCevno sadamkvirveblo misiis saboloo angariSi angariSi saboloo misiis sadamkvirveblo saarCevno THE IN T ERN at ION A L REPUBLIC A N INS T I T U T E 2008 wlis 5 ianvari 5 wlis 2008 saqarTvelos saprezidento arCevnebi saprezidento saqarTvelos ADV A NCING DEMOCR A CY WORLD W IDE demokratiis ganviTarebisTvis mTel msoflioSi mTel ganviTarebisTvis demokratiis GEORGI A PRESIDEN T I A L ELEC T ION JA NU A RY 5, 2008 International Republican Institute saerTaSoriso respublikuri instituti respublikuri saerTaSoriso ELEC T ION OBSERV at ION MISSION FIN A L REPOR T Georgia Presidential Election January 5, 2008 Election Observation Mission Final Report The International Republican Institute 1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 www.iri.org TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 3 II. Pre-Election Period 5 A. Political Situation November 2007 – January 2008 B. Presidential Candidates in the January 5, 2008 Presidential Election C. Campaign Period III. Election Period 11 A. Pre-Election Meetings B. Election Day IV. Findings and Recommendations 15 V. Appendix 19 A. IRI Preliminary Statement on the Georgian Presidential Election B. Election Observation Delegation Members C. IRI in Georgia 2008 Georgia Presidential Election 3 I. Introduction The January 2008 election cycle marked the second presidential election conducted in Georgia since the Rose Revolution. This snap election was called by President Mikheil Saakashvili who made a decision to resign after a violent crackdown on opposition street protests in November 2007. Pursuant to the Georgian Constitution, he relinquished power to Speaker of Parliament Nino Burjanadze who became Acting President.
  • Information on IRC – R.O.S.T., the Registrar of the Company and the Acting Ballot Committee of MMC Norilsk Nickel

    Information on IRC – R.O.S.T., the Registrar of the Company and the Acting Ballot Committee of MMC Norilsk Nickel

    Information on IRC – R.O.S.T., the registrar of the Company and the acting Ballot Committee of MMC Norilsk Nickel IRC – R.O.S.T. (former R.O.S.T. Registrar merged with Independent Registrar Company in February 2019) was established in 1996. In 2003–2015, Independent Registrar Company was a member of Computershare Group, a global leader in registrar and transfer agency services. In July 2015, IRC changed its ownership to pass into the control of a group of independent Russian investors. In December 2016, R.O.S.T. Registrar and Independent Registrar Company, both owned by the same group of independent investors, formed IRC – R.O.S.T. Group of Companies. In 2018, Saint Petersburg Central Registrar joined the Group. In February 2019, Independent Registrar Company merged with IRC – R.O.S.T. Ultimate beneficiaries of IRC – R.O.S.T. Group are individuals with a strong background in business management and stock markets. No beneficiary holds a blocking stake in the Group. In accordance with indefinite License No. 045-13976-000001, IRC – R.O.S.T. keeps records of holders of registered securities. Services offered by IRC – R.O.S.T. to its clients include: › Records of shareholders, interestholders, bondholders, holders of mortgage participation certificates, lenders, and joint property owners › Meetings of shareholders, joint owners, lenders, company members, etc. › Electronic voting › Postal and electronic mailing › Corporate consulting › Buyback of securities, including payments for securities repurchased › Proxy solicitation › Call centre services › Depositary and brokerage, including escrow agent services IRC – R.O.S.T. Group invests a lot in development of proprietary high-tech solutions, e.g.
  • Russia's 2012 Presidential Election

    Russia's 2012 Presidential Election

    Russia’s 2012 Presidential Election: Yet Another Term for Putin? By Paweł Piotr Styrna l February 27, 2012 The next presidential election in post-Soviet Russia is scheduled for March 4, 2012. The roster of candidates Russian voters can choose from is rather limited, both in terms of the number of candidates and their backgrounds. The upcoming contest pits five candidates against each other: the Sovietonostalgic chekist, Vladimir Putin; the unreconstructed and unrepentant communist, Gennady Zyuganov; the socialist - and long-time Chairman of the Federation Council (Russia’s upper house) - Sergey Mironov, the nominee of the “Just Russia” Party; the infamous, rabid chauvinist, Vladimir Zhirinovsky; and the “independent” oligarch, Mikhail Prokhorov. Not surprisingly, all these men embody different, yet often overlapping, facets of post-communism. One will notice the conspicuous and telling absence of a conservative, Christian, anti-communist alternative of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn variety. This seems to correspond with what some have argued to constitute one of the essential features of post-communism (particularly in the former USSR), i.e. an ostensible political pluralism serving as a façade, disguising an establishment jealously guarding the post-communist status quo, and attempting to marginalize threats to it. Thus, the faux pluralism appears designed to cater to multiple ideological persuasions in society without jeopardizing the main continuities between communism-proper and post-communism, not to mention the privileges, perks, and golden parachutes retained or acquired by the post-communist oligarchy. This is not to claim that the post-bolshevik establishment is a monolith or that no spheres of freedom exist, but that these are significantly limited.
  • Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein Part I

    Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein Part I

    The Hard-Earned Integration of the East in the World Economic System Silviu Brucan orld socialism was a subsystem of the world-system and as such Wcould not run deeper than the system of which it was a part. Had Lenin realized the workings of the world economic system, he would have concluded that Russia had no chance whatsoever to build an antisystemic economy in the midst of an overpowering world capitalist system. In his earlier writings, Lenin had a glimpse of that reality, hoping that another socialist revolution would break out in Germany, bailing out the Russian one. Instead, as his dream failed to materialize he began a desperate enter- prise: socialism in one country. In retrospective, I venture to say that the pervasive power of the world- system expressed itself in the fact that Lenin and Stalin, unconsciously, conceived both socialist society, as well as the future communist society, within the limits of the industrial system, which historically belongs to the capitalist epoch. This began when Stalin presented industrialization as the goal of socialism (industrialization being essentially a capitalist operation), and ended with Lenin’s defi nition of communism “Soviets plus electrifi cation,”and Stalin’s threshold to communism expressed in terms of millions of tons of pig iron, steel, coal and oil B both indicating the limit of their historical perspective within the industrial system. Never did they formulate a new type of productive forces that would usher in the formation of a postcapitalist society, remaining intellectual prisoners of the industrial system. Silviu Brucan Str. Helesteului 26 Sector 1 71297 Bucuresti Romania journal of world-systems research, vi, 2, summer/fall 2000, 444-453 Special Issue: Festchrift for Immanuel Wallerstein – Part I http://jwsr.ucr.edu issn 1076-156x © 2000 Silviu Brucan 444 445 Silviu Brucan The Hard-Earned Integration of the East in the World Economic System 446 Stalin tried hopelessly to escape from that theoretical framework.
  • The Siloviki in Russian Politics

    The Siloviki in Russian Politics

    The Siloviki in Russian Politics Andrei Soldatov and Michael Rochlitz Who holds power and makes political decisions in contemporary Russia? A brief survey of available literature in any well-stocked bookshop in the US or Europe will quickly lead one to the answer: Putin and the “siloviki” (see e.g. LeVine 2009; Soldatov and Borogan 2010; Harding 2011; Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky 2012; Lucas 2012, 2014 or Dawisha 2014). Sila in Russian means force, and the siloviki are the members of Russia’s so called “force ministries”—those state agencies that are authorized to use violence to respond to threats to national security. These armed agents are often portrayed—by journalists and scholars alike—as Russia’s true rulers. A conventional wisdom has emerged about their rise to dominance, which goes roughly as follows. After taking office in 2000, Putin reconsolidated the security services and then gradually placed his former associates from the KGB and FSB in key positions across the country (Petrov 2002; Kryshtanovskaya and White 2003, 2009). Over the years, this group managed to disable almost all competing sources of power and control. United by a common identity, a shared worldview, and a deep personal loyalty to Putin, the siloviki constitute a cohesive corporation, which has entrenched itself at the heart of Russian politics. Accountable to no one but the president himself, they are the driving force behind increasingly authoritarian policies at home (Illarionov 2009; Roxburgh 2013; Kasparov 2015), an aggressive foreign policy (Lucas 2014), and high levels of state predation and corruption (Dawisha 2014). While this interpretation contains elements of truth, we argue that it provides only a partial and sometimes misleading and exaggerated picture of the siloviki’s actual role.
  • Temptation to Control

    Temptation to Control

    PrESS frEEDOM IN UKRAINE : TEMPTATION TO CONTROL ////////////////// REPORT BY JEAN-FRANÇOIS JULLIARD AND ELSA VIDAL ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// AUGUST 2010 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// PRESS FREEDOM: REPORT OF FACT-FINDING VISIT TO UKRAINE ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 2 Natalia Negrey / public action at Mykhaylivska Square in Kiev in November of 2009 Many journalists, free speech organisations and opposition parliamentarians are concerned to see the government becoming more and more remote and impenetrable. During a public meeting on 20 July between Reporters Without Borders and members of the Ukrainian parliament’s Committee of Enquiry into Freedom of Expression, parliamentarian Andrei Shevchenko deplored not only the increase in press freedom violations but also, and above all, the disturbing and challenging lack of reaction from the government. The data gathered by the organisation in the course of its monitoring of Ukraine confirms that there has been a significant increase in reports of press freedom violations since Viktor Yanukovych’s election as president in February. LEGISlaTIVE ISSUES The government’s desire to control journalists is reflected in the legislative domain. Reporters Without Borders visited Ukraine from 19 to 21 July in order to accomplish The Commission for Establishing Freedom the first part of an evaluation of the press freedom situation. of Expression, which was attached to the presi- It met national and local media representatives, members of press freedom dent’s office, was dissolved without explanation NGOs (Stop Censorship, Telekritika, SNUJ and IMI), ruling party and opposition parliamentarians and representatives of the prosecutor-general’s office. on 2 April by a decree posted on the president’s At the end of this initial visit, Reporters Without Borders gave a news conference website on 9 April.
  • Putin: Russia's Choice, Second Edition

    Putin: Russia's Choice, Second Edition

    Putin The second edition of this extremely well-received political biography of Vladimir Putin builds on the strengths of the previous edition to provide the most detailed and nuanced account of the man, his politics and his pro- found influence on Russian politics, foreign policy and society. New to this edition: Analysis of Putin’s second term as President. More biographical information in the light of recent research. Detailed discussion of changes to the policy process and the elites around Putin. Developments in state–society relations including the conflicts with oli- garchs such as Khodorkovsky. Review of changes affecting the party system and electoral legislation, including the development of federalism in Russia. Details on economic performance under Putin, including more discus- sion of the energy sector and pipeline politics. Russia’s relationship with Nato after the ‘big-bang’ enlargement, EU– Russian relations after enlargement and Russia’s relations with other post- Soviet states. The conclusion brings us up to date with debates over the question of democracy in Russia today, and the nature of Putin’s leadership and his place in the world. Putin: Russia’s choice is essential reading for all scholars and students of Russian politics. Richard Sakwa is Professor of Politics at the University of Kent, UK. Putin Russia’s choice Second edition Richard Sakwa First edition published 2004 Second edition, 2008 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.
  • Respondent Motion to Dismiss Petition to Confirm Award

    Respondent Motion to Dismiss Petition to Confirm Award

    Case 1:14-cv-01996-ABJ Document 24 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HULLEY ENTERPRISES LTD., ) YUKOS UNIVERSAL LTD., and ) VETERAN PETROLEUM LTD., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) Case No. 1:14-cv-01996-ABJ v. ) ) THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Minute Orders of August 4, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Respondent, the Russian Federation, respectfully submits this motion to dismiss the Petitioners’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Awards, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Respondent submits herewith a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. Respondent also submits the following documents, with exhibits, in further support of its Motion to Dismiss: 1. The Declaration of Gitas Povilo Anilionis, dated October 16, 2015, describing the control structure of SP Russian Trust and Trade (“RTT”) and its role in the acquisition and subsequent transfers of the Yukos shares; Case 1:14-cv-01996-ABJ Document 24 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 55 2. The Declaration of Arkady Vitalyevich Zakharov, dated October 14, 2015, describing the control structure of Menatep Group and IF Menatep and its role, along with RTT, in the acquisition and subsequent transfers of the Yukos shares; 3. The Declaration of Colonel of Justice Sergey A.