DOCSLIB.ORG

Cherney-V-Deripaska-Day-1-July-9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cherney-V-Deripaska-Day-1-July-9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case No 2006 Folio 1218 QUEEN‘S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Before the Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Smith BETWEEN: MICHAEL CHERNEY Claimant - and - OLEG VLADIMIROVICH DERIPASKA Defendant ___________________________________ CLAIMANT‘S WRITTEN OPENING SUBMISISONS FOR TRIAL ___________________________________ References to documents in the trial bundles are in the form {Bundle/Tab (if relevant)/Page}. Various agreed documents will also be lodged with or shortly after these submissions. A preliminary reading list will be lodged at the same time as these submissions. A dramatis personae, a procedural chronology and a substantive chronology are still in the process of being agreed between the parties, and so shall be lodged separately shortly. OUTLINE CONTENTS Page A: INTRODUCTION 1 B: FORMATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP 14 C: EVENTS IN 1994 25 D: 1995-1997: TRADALCO AND TWG 30 E: MR CHERNEY‘S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP 41 F: THE BALANCE SHEETS 49 G: THE ROLE PLAYED BY MR MAKHMUDOV 54 H: SYNDIKUS AND THE ROLE OF THE RADOM FOUNDATION 61 I: THE ALLEGED KRYSHA ARRANGEMENT AND DOLYA PAYMENTS 82 J: ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINALITY MADE AGAINST MR CHERNEY AND THIRD PARTIES 95 K: 2000-2006, AND IN PARTICULAR THE EVENTS OF 10 MARCH 2001 106 L: ANALYSIS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY MR 131 CHERNEY ANNEXES 1 – 5 142-150 i CONTENTS IN DETAIL Para Page A: INTRODUCTION 1 1 Agreement No 1 and Supplement No 1 10 8 The structure of these submissions 12 12 B: FORMATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP 13 14 The position of Mr Cherney when he met Mr Deripaska 14 14 The position of Mr Deripaska at the time of his first meeting with Mr Cherney 30 20 Mr Cherney‘s meeting with Mr Deripaska and their partnership 37 22 C: EVENTS IN 1994 46 25 Acquisition of shares by entities controlled by Mr Deripaska 47 25 The joint share-buying agreement with TWG 49 27 Mr Deripaska‘s appointment as director general of Saaz 52 28 Neoton Management 54 28 D: 1995-1997: TRADALCO AND TWG 56 30 The formation of Bluzwed Metals 59 31 The involvement of CCT, Bluzwed Foundation and the Megannetty Foundation in 66 33 profits made by Bluzwed Metals The failure to challenge Mr Cherney‘s involvement in Bluzwed Metals 71 34 Mr Cherney ceases to be a partner in TWG 75 35 The joint venture between Mr Cherney and Mr Deripaska, and TWG, begins to break up 84 37 Litigation with TWG 92 39 E: MR CHERNEY’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP 94 41 Mr Cherney‘s contacts 96 41 Mr Cherney‘s financial contribution 97 42 The January Further Information 97 42 Payments which were made for the aluminium business 99 43 The position in 1994 99 43 The position in 1995-1998 100 43 The position in 1999 and 2000 106 44 The significant of payments made for the purposes of the copper business 112 46 F: THE BALANCE SHEETS 116 49 The evidence from Mr Deripaska‘s witnesses as to the balance sheets 117 49 The balance sheets 120 50 ii Issues which arise as to the balance sheets 128 52 What happened after 2000? 130 52 G: THE ROLE PLAYED BY MR MAKHMUDOV 132 54 Mr Deripaska‘s relationship with Mr Makhmudov 134 55 Mr Cherney‘s relationship with Mr Makhmudov 139 56 Mr Deripaska‘s shifting case 144 58 Dealings between Mr Cherney, Mr Deripaska and Mr Makhmudov 147 59 H: SYNDIKUS AND THE ROLE OF THE RADOM FOUNDATION 148 61 Mr Cherney‘s introduction to Syndikus 156 63 Mr Deripaska‘s introduction to Syndikus 161 65 DKK Development & Research Foundation 165 66 Events in the period between 1994 and 1996 173 68 Mr Cherney‟s delegation of authority 173 68 The UOB reports 176 68 The establishment of the Meganetty Foundation 180 70 Events in 1997 – the establishment of the Radom Foundation 181 70 Events in 1998 – the position of Mr Maskhmudov and the introduction of Mr Popov and 193 73 Mr Malevsky to Radom LLC Aluminproduct 199 74 Events in 1999 – the restructuring of the Radom group and the creation of Sibal 204 76 The Paris meeting 211 77 Implementation of the restructuring plan 216 79 Events in 2000 and beyond – the liquidation of the entities controlled by Syndikus 219 79 I: THE ALLEGED KRYSHA ARRANGEMENT AND DOLYA PAYMENTS 224 82 The shifting nature of Mr Deripaska‘s case 228 82 Evidence of the relationship between Mr Deripaska and alleged extortionists 230 84 Mr Deripaska‟s witnesses fail to support the alleged krysha 232 84 Evidence of Mr Deripaska‟s relationship with the alleged extortionists 236 85 Mr Deripaska‘s relationship with Mr Malevsky and Mr Popov 238 85 Mr Deripaska‘s relationship with Mr Cherney 241 88 The true nature of the dolya payments 243 90 Alleged dolya payments during the course of the alleged krysha relationship 246 91 Yudashkin 246 91 Soyuzcontract and Archers Trading 248 92 Alleged dolya payments made pursuant to Supplment No 1 253 93 J: ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINALITY MADE AGAINST MR CHERNEY 254 95 AND THIRD PARTIES Relevance of the allegation to the issues 263 97 The way in which Mr Deripaska‘s case has developed 266 97 iii The nature of the evidence relied on in support of the allegation 268 98 Mr Deripaska‘s relationship with Mr Malevsky and Mr Popov 273 102 Similarities in the evidence relating to Mr Makhmudov 274 102 Mr Deripaska‘s use of komprommat: Mirepco 177 103 K: 2000-2006, AND IN PARTICULAR THE EVENTS OF 10 MARCH 2001 281 106 Events leading up to the meeting 283 106 The merger between Sibal and Sibneft 283 106 Mr Cherney‟s interview in November 2000 299 111 Mr Deripaska‟s meeting with bankers in January 2001 302 112 The meeting on 10 March 2001 305 112 Events after the meeting 322 121 Events in 2001 324 122 Events in 2002 328 123 Events in 2003 336 126 Events in 2004 342 127 Events in 2005 346 128 Events in 2006 349 129 L: ANALYSIS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY 352 131 MR CHERNEY The Agreement 358 132 The position of the parties at the time of the Agreement 358 132 The terms of the Agreement 362 133 Translation issues 363 133 Agreement No 1 364 133 Supplement No 1 366 134 Objections raised by Mr Deripaska 373 136 Sham transaction / no commercial sense 374 137 Uncertainty 376 137 The Agreement did not impose any obligation upon Mr Deripaska 377 138 Relief sought by Mr Cherney 378 138 Choice of law 385 140 ANNEX 1 – ALLEGATIONS OF AND KRYSHA, CRIMINALITY AND DOLYA: THE 142 DEVELOPMENT OF MR DERIPASKA‘S CASE ANNEX 2 – THE SOURCE OF FUNDS USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 144 SHARES IN SAAZ IN 1993 AND 1994 ANNEX 3 – PAYMENTS MADE BY COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY MR CHERNEY AND USED FOR MR CHERNEY‘S PARTNERSHIP WITH MR 146 DERIPASKA FROM 1995 ANNEX 4 – EXAMPLES OF MR DERIPASKA‘S SELECTIVE USE OF EVIDENCE 148 IN HIS HEARSAY NOTICE OF 25 MAY 2012 ANNEX 5 – THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF SIBAL IN 1999 149 iv A. INTRODUCTION 1. This case arises out of a meeting between Mr Michael Cherney and Mr Oleg Deripaska at the Lanesborough Hotel on 10 March 2001. It is common ground that they met. It is common ground that they reached an agreement of some sort. Little else is. In essence, the position is as follows. 2. Mr Cherney says: 1) Mr Deripaska and he were partners. 2) By 2001, their relative status and positions had changed, and at the Lanesborough Hotel Mr Deripaska agreed to buy him out of their joint aluminium business. The terms of their agreement were, for the most part, recorded in two documents drafted by Mr Deripaska and signed by both of them, prosaically entitled ―Agreement No 1‖ and ―Supplement No 1‖.1 3) Under the former, Mr Deripaska agreed to make a preliminary payment of US$250 million to Mr Cherney for his interest in Sibal. Under the latter, Mr Deripaska undertook to pay Mr Cherney the value of 20% of the shares in OJSC Russky Alyuminiy (the vehicle that was intended to hold the entirety of the merged Sibal/Sibneft business), minus the US$250 million, within a specified number of years. 4) Agreement No 1 has been performed; Supplement No 1 has not; on the contrary it has been repudiated by Mr Deripaska. 3. Mr Deripaska says: 1) He agrees that he drafted Agreement No 1, which appears on its face to provide for the sale by Mr Cherney to Mr Deripaska of an interest in a company known as Sibal and the making of a preliminary payment by Mr Deripaska in return. 2) He agrees that he and Mr Cherney signed that document on 10 March 2001. 3) He accepts that he did in fact pay Mr Cherney $250 million. 1 Both parties have put forward proposed translations of both agreements. In addition, the translation experts have also agreed a translation for the purposes of, and on the basis explained in, their Joint Memorandum. The translations of Ms Edwards (Claimant‘s expert) can be found in Appendix D to her report at {15/2/47} - {15/2/52} (there are two versions: ―clean‖ versions and versions showing the differences between her translation and that originally prepared for the Claimant and relied on at the jurisdiction stage and in advance of the expert translation evidence). The translations of Professor Konurbaev can be found in paragraph 6.2 of his report at {15/3/76} - {15/3/78} .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oleg Deripaska Has Struggled for Legitimacy in the United States, Where He Has Been Dogged by Civil Lawsuits Questioning the Methods He Used to Build That Empire
    The Globe and Mail (Canada) May 11, 2007 Friday Preferred by the Kremlin, shunned by the States BYLINE: SINCLAIR STEWART, With a report from Greg Keenan in Toronto SECTION: NEWS BUSINESS; STRONACH'S NEW PARTNER: 'ONE OF PUTIN'S FAVOURITE OLIGARCHS'; Pg. A1 LENGTH: 957 words DATELINE: NEW YORK He is perhaps the most powerful of Russia's oligarchs, a precocious - some would say ruthless - billionaire, who built his fortune against the bloody backdrop of that country's "aluminum wars" in the 1990s. He has nurtured close ties to the Kremlin, married the daughter of former president Boris Yeltsin's son-in-law, amassed an estimated $8-billion in personal wealth and built a corporate empire that stretches from metals and automobiles to aircraft and construction. Yet for all his success at home, 39-year-old Oleg Deripaska has struggled for legitimacy in the United States, where he has been dogged by civil lawsuits questioning the methods he used to build that empire. Mr. Deripaska has repeatedly denied allegations levelled against him, and he has not been specifically accused by American authorities of any crime. However, these whispers about shady business dealings may raise concerns about his $1.5-billion investment in Canada's Magna International, not to mention Magna's attempts to win control of DaimlerChrysler, an iconic American company. The United States has recently shown protectionist proclivities, citing national security concerns to quash both a Chinese state-owned oil company's bid for Unocal Ltd. and a planned acquisition of U.S. port service contracts by Dubai Ports World.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion to Intervene, Second Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): 10-2905-cr; 11-479-cr Caption [use short title] Motion for: intervening and unsealing docket Roe v. United States 10-2905-cr, 11-470-cr Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: This is a motion to intervene. Intervenor moves to: (1) intervene; (2) unseal the entirety of the Second Circuit's docket; and (3) unseal all docket entries. MOVING PARTY: Forbes Media LLC and Richard Behar OPPOSING PARTY: 9 Plaintiff 9 Defendant 9 Appellant/Petitioner 9 Appellee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Jay Ward Brown OPPOSING ATTORNEY: [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P. Phone: (202) 508-1136 1899 L Street, NW, Suite 200 Email: [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20036 Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: N/A (The proceedings below occurred in the district court for the E.D.N.Y.) Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? 9 Yes 9 No ✔9 Yes 9 No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? 9 Yes 9 No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Opposing counsel’s position on motion: ✔9 Unopposed ✔ 9 Opposed 9 Don’t Know Note regarding opposing counsel's position: Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: ✔9 Yes 9 No 9 Don’t Know the United States counsel does not oppose standing, but does oppose unsealing; Doe's counsel did not respond after being notified of the motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic and International Consequences How—And Why—The U.K
    Russian corruption: Domestic and international consequences How—and why—the U.K. should bolster anti-corruption efforts in the Russian Federation By Julia Pettengill First published in 2013 by The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society 8th Floor – Parker Tower, 43-49 Parker Street, London, WC2B 5PS Tel: 020 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society, 2013 All rights reserved The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its directors Designed by Genium, www.geniumcreative.com ISBN 978-1-909035-06-5 2 About The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society: A cross-partisan, British think-tank. Our founders and supporters are united by a common interest in fostering a strong British, European and American commitment towards freedom, liberty, constitutional democracy, human rights, governmental and institutional reform and a robust foreign, security and defence policy and transatlantic alliance. The Henry Jackson Society is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales under company number 07465741 and a charity registered in England and Wales under registered charity number 1140489. For more information about Henry Jackson Society activities, our research programme and public events please see www.henryjacksonsociety.org. 3 Russian corruption: Domestic and international consequences CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 INTRODUCTION 11 CHAPTER 1 – CORRUPTION IN RUSSIA: RECENT HISTORY 13 Anti-Corruption activities in Russian civil society 17 The government’s anti-corruption drive: Potemkin politics or serious initiative? 18 FACT BOX: The Serdyukov Case 20 Corruption and human rights in Russia: Two case studies 22 Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the Yukos case: “The world’s biggest threat is corruption, not nuclear weapons” 22 Sergei Magnitsky: Silencing the whistle-blower 24 Sergei Magnitsky’s death: International impact 25 CHAPTER 2 – RUSSIAN CORRUPTION: A DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM 28 The U.K.
    [Show full text]
  • Berezovsky Abramovich Summary Amended
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FULL JUDGMENT OF GLOSTER J IN Berezovsky v Abramovich Action 2007 Folio 942 Introduction 1. This is an executive summary of my full judgment in this action. The full judgment is the definitive judgment and this summary is provided simply for the convenience of the parties and the public. 2. In action 2007 Folio 942, which I shall refer to as the Commercial Court action, the claimant, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky sues the defendant, Roman Arkadievich Abramovich for sums in excess of US dollars (“$”) 5.6 billion. 3. Both men are Russian citizens and are, or were, successful businessmen. Mr. Berezovsky fled from Russia to France on 30 October 2000, following a public dispute with Vladimir Putin, who was elected President of the Russian Federation in March 2000. Mr. Berezovsky subsequently settled in England and applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on 27 October 2001. His application was accepted on 10 September 2003. He is now resident in England. 1 October 2012 16:28 Page 1 4. At the time Mr. Berezovsky fled Russia, he had substantial commercial interests in the Russian Federation. According to his United Kingdom tax returns, he remains domiciled in Russia for tax purposes and intends to return to Russia when the political situation permits him to do so. 5. Mr. Abramovich frequently visits England because of his ownership of Chelsea Football Club. He also had substantial commercial interests in the Russian Federation at material times for the purposes of this litigation. 6. Jurisdiction in the action was founded on service, or attempted service, of the claim form personally on Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Outsourcing Law in Post-Soviet Russia
    Outsourcing Law in Post-Soviet Russia Delphine Nougayrède* This article looks at a specific phenomenon that has marked Russia’s legal development as an open market economy since 1992: the dominant use by Russian economic actors of corporate and contractual structures governed by foreign law instead of Russian law for a substantial portion of their activities and the adjudication of large Russian commercial disputes in foreign venues rather than in domestic venues. Russian economic actors have been extraordinarily busy users of foreign legal infrastructure. During this period there was, in fact, a hefty Russian demand for commercial law and legal services, but instead of being directed towards Russian domestic law and legal infrastructure, much of this demand was outsourced to foreign lawyers and foreign legal infrastructure. The Russian political structures and domestic legal community allowed the outsourcing and in some ways encouraged it, in an implicit consensus that Russian law was not (or not yet) able to serve the needs of large Russian businesses. In a globalized world, the use by economic actors of foreign law, foreign courts, and foreign corporate structures is a common form of private ordering of transnational activity.1 It is obviously not unique to Russia. What seems unique in Russia is the extent of the outsourcing and the fact that it affected not just transactions between Russian and foreign economic actors but also entire segments of domestic activity that were structured specifically in order to use foreign legal infrastructure rather than domestic infrastructure. The insufficient protection of property rights by Russian law and the discretionary use of Russian law as a weapon for political ends are well known themes that have already been widely examined.2 * Docteur en droit (Paris V), solicitor (England and Wales).
    [Show full text]
  • Stasi, Gangster, Russenmafia? Wie Der Österreichische Investor Martin Schlaff Zum Milliardär Wurde Von Matthias Holland-Letz
    SWR2 MANUSKRIPT ESSAYS FEATURES KOMMENTARE VORTRÄGE SWR2 Feature Stasi, Gangster, Russenmafia? Wie der österreichische Investor Martin Schlaff zum Milliardär wurde Von Matthias Holland-Letz Sendung: Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2016 Redaktion: Wolfram Wessels Regie: Günter Maurer Produktion: SWR 2016 Bitte beachten Sie: Das Manuskript ist ausschließlich zum persönlichen, privaten Gebrauch bestimmt. Jede weitere Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung des Urhebers bzw. des SWR. Service: SWR2 Feature können Sie auch als Live-Stream hören im SWR2 Webradio unter www.swr2.de oder als Podcast nachhören: http://www1.swr.de/podcast/xml/swr2/feature.xml Mitschnitte aller Sendungen der Redaktion SWR2 Feature sind auf CD erhältlich beim SWR Mitschnittdienst in Baden-Baden zum Preis von 12,50 Euro. Bestellungen über Telefon: 07221/929-26030 Bestellungen per E-Mail: [email protected] Kennen Sie schon das Serviceangebot des Kulturradios SWR2? Mit der kostenlosen SWR2 Kulturkarte können Sie zu ermäßigten Eintrittspreisen Veranstaltungen des SWR2 und seiner vielen Kulturpartner im Sendegebiet besuchen. Mit dem Infoheft SWR2 Kulturservice sind Sie stets über SWR2 und die zahlreichen Veranstaltungen im SWR2-Kulturpartner-Netz informiert. Jetzt anmelden unter 07221/300 200 oder swr2.de Bedrohlich klingende Musik. Peter Pilz, österreichischer Politiker: „Faktum ist, dass Martin Schlaff extrem gut vernetzt ist. Von dubiosen russischen und bulgarischen Kreisen bis rein in die Spitzen der österreichischen Politik und in polizeinahe Bereiche….“ Bedrohlich klingende Musik. Florian Scheuba, österreichischer Kabarettist: „Martin Schlaff ist eine faszinierende Gestalt, eine schillernde Figur, über die man sehr wenig weiß…“ Bedrohlich klingende Musik. Zitator 2: „Stasi, Gangster, Russenmafia? Wie der österreichische Investor Martin Schlaff zum Milliardär wurde.“ Sprecher: Ein Feature von Matthias Holland-Letz.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Cherney, Oleg Deripaska and Their Connections to Organized Crime
    MICHAEL CHERNEY, OLEG DERIPASKA AND THEIR CONNECTIONS TO ORGANIZED CRIME. Michael Cherney and Oleg Deripaska are directly related to the Russian organized crime group Izmailovskaya where Mr Cherney is an absolute leader of the economic section. Mr Deripaska built his first fortunes, firstly, through one or more controlled companies that were used to meet certain criminal purposes of the organization, and secondly, designing dirty money laundering schemes. Primary aluminum production is considered to be the third largest sources of foreign exchange revenues y and the GDP in Russia, a country that, together with Kazakhstan and Ukraine, represents almost all global primary aluminum production. This fact was the reason why the metal industry in general has converted into one of the main goals of the criminal groups from the former Soviet Union. The Izmailovskaya gang currently controls a good part of the aluminum industry. In a historical context, links of Michael Cherney and Oleg Deripaska to this gang date back to the privatization during the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. At that time both of them, in a close collaboration with Izmailovskaya and taking advantages of the organization’ capacities, extortion or murder among them, gained control over a large part of Russia's aluminum production and other strategic metals. Thus, they assumed control of a big part of the sector, made a huge fortune, gained prominence for economic and political influence, both in the Russian Federation and beyond. It is known that at that time the financial architecture of the criminal organization’s money laundering system was led by a group of people.
    [Show full text]
  • Gliklad V Deripaska (2017 NY Slip Op 50549(U)) [*1] Gliklad V Deripaska 2017 NY Slip Op 50549(U) Decided on April 25, 2017
    4/28/2017 Gliklad v Deripaska (2017 NY Slip Op 50549(U)) [*1] Gliklad v Deripaska 2017 NY Slip Op 50549(U) Decided on April 25, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Singh, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on April 25, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Alexander Gliklad, Petitioner, against Oleg Deripaska, Respondent. 652641/2015 Thomas J. Quigley W. Gordon Dobie Thomas J. Quigley http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_50549.htm 1/21 4/28/2017 Gliklad v Deripaska (2017 NY Slip Op 50549(U)) Nicholas R. Alioto Attorneys for Petitioner Alexander Gliklad James M. Altman Howard M. Rogatnick Attorneys for Respondent Oleg Deripaska Anil C. Singh, J. Petitioner Alexander Gliklad ("Gliklad") moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5201 and 5227 against respondent Oleg Deripaska ("Deripaska") contending that: 1) under CPLR 301, Deripaska is subject to general jurisdiction as he is the "alter ego" of a New York corporation; and 2) under CPLR 302(a)(1), Deripaska is subject to specific jurisdiction based on Deripaska's actions in Russia and England intended to prevent Gliklad from prevailing in the underlying action against Michael Cherney ("Cherney") and to hinder satisfaction of Gliklad's judgment against Cherney (Mot. Seq. 005). Deripaska opposes the motion and cross­moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice. Gliklad also moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 308(5) authorizing service on Deripaska's New York attorneys upon a finding of jurisdiction (Mot.
    [Show full text]
  • Cherney V Deripaska [2008] APP.L.R. 07/03 JUDGMENT : MR JUSTICE
    Cherney v Deripaska [2008] APP.L.R. 07/03 JUDGMENT : MR JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE : Commercial Court. 3rd July 2008 1. This is an application for permission to serve the claim form on Mr Oleg Deripaska, the defendant, out of the jurisdiction. The original claim form was issued on 24th November 2006. It was purportedly served on Mr Deripaska by service on a security guard at his house in Belgrave Square on 26th November 2006. In a judgment of 3rd May 2007 Langley, J decided that Mr Deripaska had not been properly served and that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the claim under Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/201 (the "Jurisdiction Regulation") because Mr Deripaska was not domiciled in England & Wales. He also refused (a) to dispense with service of the claim form; (b) to extend time for its service and (c) to grant permission to appeal. The history of the application 2. On 9th February 2007 Tomlinson, J, had fixed a second hearing for 21st- 22nd June 2007 (with evidence to be exchanged on 11th May, and evidence in reply by 5th June) at which the Court would determine, if relevant, any question of stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and, if the claimant was not successful at the first hearing, an application which, in that event, was anticipated, for permission to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction. In the event no such application was made and the June hearing was vacated. The claimant's reasons for not making it, as put before Langley, J, were that, if he succeeded in establishing, on appeal, that Mr Deripaska was domiciled in England, no question of forum conveniens would arise, and that he would be trying to serve him within the jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Funding of Right-Wing Ideology in Israel
    Shir Hever The Economy of the Occupation The Alternative Information Center A Socioeconomic Bulletin Private Funding of Right-Wing Ideology in Israel № 29-30 * May 2013 Shir Hever Economy of the Occupation ___________________________________________Socioeconomic Bulletin № 29-30 Private Funding of Right-Wing Ideology in Israel ___________________________________________ May 2013 Published by the Alternative Information Center (AIC) http://www.alternativenews.org/ Jerusalem Beit Sahour 24 Hillel Street, 3rd Floor, Office 4 Building 111 Main Street PO Box 31417 PO Box 201 Jerusalem, Israel 9131302 Beit Sahour, Palestine Phone: 972-(0)2-624-1159 Phone: 972-(0)2-277-5444 Fax: 972-(0)2-625-3151 Fax: 972-(0)2-277-5445 Editor: Connie Hackbarth Graphic Designer and Illustrator: Tal Hever Printer: Latin Patriarchate Printing Press This research was conducted with the assistance of individuals from throughout the world. The Alternative Information Center Some rights received to The Alternative Information Center (AIC). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (USév3.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Table of Contents Introduction 5 Role of Civil Society in Israel/Palestine and the oPt 8 Government Treatment of NGOs 12 Parliament Treatment of NGOs 17 Collaboration between Government and NGOs 22 Why are NGOs Perceived as a Threat? 27 Who are the Right-Wing NGOs? 30 Who is Funding the Right-Wing NGOs? 50 What are the Foreign Interests Involved? 61 Conclusions 66 Bibliography 68 Private Funding of Right-Wing Ideology in Israel | 5 Introduction ivil society organizations are some of the void left by the move- often seen as representatives ment.
    [Show full text]
  • Corso Di Laurea Magistrale in Relazioni Internazionali Comparate Tesi Di Laurea
    Corso di Laurea magistrale in Relazioni Internazionali Comparate Tesi di Laurea Il ruolo delle migrazioni e delle minoranze nelle relazioni internazionali: il caso studio dei russi israeliani nei rapporti bilaterali tra Mosca e Tel Aviv Relatrice Prof.ssa Marcella Simoni Correlatore Prof. Aldo Ferrari Prof. Duccio Basosi Laureanda Claudia Zecchin 851943 Anno Accademico 2019 / 2020 Indice Introduzione .................................................................................................................................. 4 Capitolo I: Fenomenologia dell’aliyah sovietica nel secondo dopoguerra ................................. 15 I.I Breve contesto storico dalla nascita dello Stato d’Israele..................... 15 I.II La comunità ebraica in URSS ............................................................. 21 I.III Chi sono i refusenik? .......................................................................... 25 Capitolo II: La comunità internazionale e la causa dei refusenik in Urss ................................... 30 II.I L’organizzazione Nativ, l’“ufficio senza nome” ................................. 31 II.II La longa manus della comunità ebraica americana nel supporto della causa degli ebrei sovietici ......................................................................... 36 Capitolo III: Le fasi del ritorno in Israele nel “decennio decisivo” ............................................ 47 III.I Dal 1971 al 1980: eziologia dei flussi e analisi del profilo degli olim ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Berezovsky V Abramovich Action 2007 Folio 942
    In the Commercial Court (Chancery Division) 31 August 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FULL JUDGMENT OF GLOSTER J IN Berezovsky v Abramovich Action 2007 Folio 942 Introduction 1. This is an executive summary of my full judgment in this action. The full judgment is the definitive judgment and this summary is provided simply for the convenience of the parties and the public. 2. In action 2007 Folio 942, which I shall refer to as the Commercial Court action, the claimant, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky sues the defendant, Roman Arkadievich Abramovich for sums in excess of US dollars (“$”) 5.6 billion. 3. Both men are Russian citizens and are, or were, successful businessmen. Mr. Berezovsky fled from Russia to France on 30 October 2000, following a public dispute with Vladimir Putin, who was elected President of the Russian Federation in March 2000. Mr. Berezovsky subsequently settled in England and applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on 27 October 2001. His 31 August 2012 13:15 Page 1 application was accepted on 10 September 2003. He is now resident in England. 4. At the time Mr. Berezovsky fled Russia, he had substantial commercial interests in the Russian Federation. According to his United Kingdom tax returns, he remains domiciled in Russia for tax purposes and intends to return to Russia when the political situation permits him to do so. 5. Mr. Abramovich frequently visits England because of his ownership of Chelsea Football Club. He also had substantial commercial interests in the Russian Federation at material times for the purposes of this litigation. 6.
    [Show full text]