STATEMENT of MATERIAL FACT the Meeting of the Board Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Expiry Notice
Expiry Notice 19 January 2018 London Stock Exchange Derivatives Expiration prices for IOB Derivatives Please find below expiration prices for IOB products expiring in January 2018: Underlying Code Underlying Name Expiration Price AFID AFI DEVELOPMENT PLC 0.1800 ATAD PJSC TATNEFT 58.2800 FIVE X5 RETAIL GROUP NV 39.2400 GAZ GAZPROM NEFT 23.4000 GLTR GLOBALTRANS INVESTMENT PLC 9.9500 HSBK JSC HALYK SAVINGS BANK OF KAZAKHSTAN 12.4000 HYDR PJSC RUSHYDRO 1.3440 KMG JSC KAZMUNAIGAS EXPLORATION PROD 12.9000 LKOD PJSC LUKOIL 67.2000 LSRG LSR GROUP 2.9000 MAIL MAIL.RU GROUP LIMITED 32.0000 MFON MEGAFON 9.2000 MGNT PJSC MAGNIT 26.4000 MHPC MHP SA 12.8000 MDMG MD MEDICAL GROUP INVESTMENTS PLC 10.5000 MMK OJSC MAGNITOGORSK IRON AND STEEL WORKS 10.3000 MNOD MMC NORILSK NICKEL 20.2300 NCSP PJSC NOVOROSSIYSK COMM. SEA PORT 12.9000 NLMK NOVOLIPETSK STEEL 27.4000 NVTK OAO NOVATEK 128.1000 OGZD GAZPROM 5.2300 PLZL POLYUS PJSC 38.7000 RIGD RELIANCE INDUSTRIES 28.7000 RKMD ROSTELEKOM 6.9800 ROSN ROSNEFT OJSC 5.7920 SBER SBERBANK 18.6900 SGGD SURGUTNEFTEGAZ 5.2450 SMSN SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO 1148.0000 SSA SISTEMA JSFC 4.4200 SVST PAO SEVERSTAL 16.8200 TCS TCS GROUP HOLDING 19.3000 TMKS OAO TMK 5.4400 TRCN PJSC TRANSCONTAINER 8.0100 VTBR JSC VTB BANK 1.9370 Underlying code Underlying Name Expiration Price D7LKOD YEAR 17 DIVIDEND LUKOIL FUTURE 3.2643 YEAR 17 DIVIDEND MMC NORILSK NICKEL D7MNOD 1.8622 FUTURE D7OGZD YEAR 17 DIVIDEND GAZPROM FUTURE 0.2679 D7ROSN YEAR 17 DIVIDEND ROSNEFT FUTURE 0.1672 D7SBER YEAR 17 DIVIDEND SBERBANK FUTURE 0.3980 D7SGGD YEAR 17 DIVIDEND SURGUTNEFTEGAZ FUTURE 0.1000 D7VTBR YEAR 17 DIVIDEND VTB BANK FUTURE 0.0414 Members are asked to note that reports showing exercise/assignments should be available by approx. -
FY2020 Financial Results
Norilsk Nickel 2020 Financial Results Presentation February 2021 Disclaimer The information contained herein has been prepared using information available to PJSC MMC Norilsk Nickel (“Norilsk Nickel” or “Nornickel” or “NN”) at the time of preparation of the presentation. External or other factors may have impacted on the business of Norilsk Nickel and the content of this presentation, since its preparation. In addition all relevant information about Norilsk Nickel may not be included in this presentation. No representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information. Any forward looking information herein has been prepared on the basis of a number of assumptions which may prove to be incorrect. Forward looking statements, by the nature, involve risk and uncertainty and Norilsk Nickel cautions that actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Reference should be made to the most recent Annual Report for a description of major risk factors. There may be other factors, both known and unknown to Norilsk Nickel, which may have an impact on its performance. This presentation should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by Norilsk Nickel. Norilsk Nickel does not undertake an obligation to release any revision to the statements contained in this presentation. The information contained in this presentation shall not be deemed to be any form of commitment on the part of Norilsk Nickel in relation to any matters contained, or referred to, in this presentation. Norilsk Nickel expressly disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the contents of this presentation. -
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. -
Notes on Moscow Exchange Index Review
Notes on Moscow Exchange index review Moscow Exchange approves the updated list of index components and free float ratios effective from 16 March 2018. X5 Retail Group N.V. (DRs) will be added to Moscow Exchange indices with the expected weight of 1.13 per cent. As these securities were offered initially, they were added without being in the waiting list under consideration. Thus, from 16 March the indices will comprise 46 (component stocks. The MOEX Russia and RTS Index moved to a floating number of component stocks in December 2017. En+ Group plc (DRs) will be in the waiting list to be added to Moscow Exchange indices, as their liquidity rose notably over recent three months. NCSP Group (ords) with low liquidity, ROSSETI (ords) and RosAgro PLC with their weights now below the minimum permissible level (0.2 per cent) will be under consideration to be excluded from the MOEX Russia Index and RTS Index. The Blue Chip Index constituents remain unaltered. X5 Retail Group (DRs), GAZ (ords), Obuvrus LLC (ords) and TNS energo (ords) will be added to the Broad Market Index, while Common of DIXY Group and Uralkali will be removed due to delisting expected. TransContainer (ords), as its free float sank below the minimum threshold of 5 per cent, and Southern Urals Nickel Plant (ords), as its liquidity ratio declined, will be also excluded. LSR Group (ords) will be incuded into SMID Index, while SOLLERS and DIXY Group (ords) will be excluded due to low liquidity ratio. X5 Retail Group (DRs) and Obuvrus LLC (ords) will be added to the Consumer & Retail Index, while DIXY Group (ords) will be removed from the Index. -
Russia's Arctic Cities
? chapter one Russia’s Arctic Cities Recent Evolution and Drivers of Change Colin Reisser Siberia and the Far North fi gure heavily in Russia’s social, political, and economic development during the last fi ve centuries. From the beginnings of Russia’s expansion into Siberia in the sixteenth century through the present, the vast expanses of land to the north repre- sented a strategic and economic reserve to rulers and citizens alike. While these reaches of Russia have always loomed large in the na- tional consciousness, their remoteness, harsh climate, and inaccessi- bility posed huge obstacles to eff ectively settling and exploiting them. The advent of new technologies and ideologies brought new waves of settlement and development to the region over time, and cities sprouted in the Russian Arctic on a scale unprecedented for a region of such remote geography and harsh climate. Unlike in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions of other countries, the Russian Far North is highly urbanized, containing 72 percent of the circumpolar Arctic population (Rasmussen 2011). While the largest cities in the far northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland have maximum populations in the range of 10,000, Russia has multi- ple cities with more than 100,000 citizens. Despite the growing public focus on the Arctic, the large urban centers of the Russian Far North have rarely been a topic for discussion or analysis. The urbanization of the Russian Far North spans three distinct “waves” of settlement, from the early imperial exploration, expansion of forced labor under Stalin, and fi nally to the later Soviet development 2 | Colin Reisser of energy and mining outposts. -
Treisman Silovarchs 9 10 06
Putin’s Silovarchs Daniel Treisman October 2006, Forthcoming in Orbis, Winter 2007 In the late 1990s, many Russians believed their government had been captured by a small group of business magnates known as “the oligarchs”. The most flamboyant, Boris Berezovsky, claimed in 1996 that seven bankers controlled fifty percent of the Russian economy. Having acquired massive oil and metals enterprises in rigged privatizations, these tycoons exploited Yeltsin’s ill-health to meddle in politics and lobby their interests. Two served briefly in government. Another, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, summed up the conventional wisdom of the time in a 1997 interview: “Politics is the most lucrative field of business in Russia. And it will be that way forever.”1 A decade later, most of the original oligarchs have been tripping over each other in their haste to leave the political stage, jettisoning properties as they go. From exile in London, Berezovsky announced in February he was liquidating his last Russian assets. A 1 Quoted in Andrei Piontkovsky, “Modern-Day Rasputin,” The Moscow Times, 12 November, 1997. fellow media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky, long ago surrendered his television station to the state-controlled gas company Gazprom and now divides his time between Israel and the US. Khodorkovsky is in a Siberian jail, serving an eight-year sentence for fraud and tax evasion. Roman Abramovich, Berezovsky’s former partner, spends much of his time in London, where he bought the Chelsea soccer club in 2003. Rather than exile him to Siberia, the Kremlin merely insists he serve as governor of the depressed Arctic outpost of Chukotka—a sign Russia’s leaders have a sense of humor, albeit of a dark kind. -
Templeton Eastern Europe Fund Equity LU0078277505 31 August 2021
Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Emerging Markets Templeton Eastern Europe Fund Equity LU0078277505 31 August 2021 Fund Fact Sheet For professional use only. Not for distribution to the public. Fund Overview Performance Base Currency for Fund EUR Performance over 5 Years in Share Class Currency (%) Templeton Eastern Europe Fund A (acc) EUR MSCI EM Europe Index-NR Total Net Assets (EUR) 231 million Fund Inception Date 10.11.1997 160 Number of Issuers 45 Benchmark MSCI EM Europe 140 Index-NR Investment Style Blend Morningstar Category™ Emerging Europe Equity 120 Summary of Investment Objective 100 The Fund aims to achieve long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in listed equity securities of issuers organised under the laws of or having their principal activities within the countries of Eastern Europe, as well as 80 08/16 02/17 08/17 02/18 08/18 02/19 08/19 02/20 08/20 02/21 08/21 the New Independent States, i.e. the countries in Europe and Asia that were formerly part of or under the influence of Performance in Share Class Currency (%) the Soviet Union. Cumulative Annualised Since Since Fund Management 1 Mth 3 Mths 6 Mths YTD 1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Incept Incept A (acc) EUR 6.42 11.11 26.64 33.63 51.24 53.18 56.89 34.32 260.58 5.54 Krzysztof Musialik, CFA: Poland A (acc) USD 5.94 7.30 23.95 29.16 49.67 55.85 66.03 10.37 25.43 1.44 Ratings - A (acc) EUR B (acc) USD 5.87 6.92 23.29 28.09 47.85 50.20 56.08 -2.95 -24.30 -1.84 Benchmark in EUR 5.12 10.50 24.75 24.42 37.82 37.48 54.51 30.76 271.45 5.67 Overall Morningstar Rating™: Calendar Year Performance in Share Class Currency (%) Asset Allocation 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 A (acc) EUR -15.33 36.67 -21.23 17.61 20.37 4.84 -19.49 -3.97 17.37 -40.02 A (acc) USD -7.78 33.81 -24.78 34.11 16.61 -5.88 -29.18 0.07 19.63 -41.94 B (acc) USD -8.80 31.98 -25.72 32.46 14.98 -7.07 -30.09 -1.33 18.15 -42.70 Benchmark in EUR -19.73 34.75 -7.46 5.88 29.27 -5.03 -20.28 -8.61 22.37 -21.10 % Past performance is not an indicator or a guarantee of future performance. -
William R. Spiegelberger the Foreign Policy Research Institute Thanks the Carnegie Corporation for Its Support of the Russia Political Economy Project
Russia Political Economy Project William R. Spiegelberger The Foreign Policy Research Institute thanks the Carnegie Corporation for its support of the Russia Political Economy Project. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Author: William R. Spiegelberger Eurasia Program Leadership Director: Chris Miller Deputy Director: Maia Otarashvili Edited by: Thomas J. Shattuck Designed by: Natalia Kopytnik © 2019 by the Foreign Policy Research Institute April 2019 COVER: Designed by Natalia Kopytnik. Photography: Oleg Deripaska (World Economic Forum); St. Basil’s Cathedral (Adob Stock); Ruble (Adobe Stock); Vladimir Putin (kremlin.ru); Rusal logo (rusal.ru); United States Capitol (Adobe Stock; Viktor Vekselberg (Aleshru/Wikimedia Commons); Alumnium rolls (Adobe Stock); Trade War (Adobe Stock). Our Mission The Foreign Policy Research Institute is dedicated to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the foreign policy and national security challenges facing the United States. It seeks to educate the public, teach teachers, train students, and offer ideas to advance U.S. national interests based on a nonpartisan, geopolitical perspective that illuminates contemporary international affairs through the lens of history, geography, and culture. Offering Ideas In an increasingly polarized world, we pride ourselves on our tradition of nonpartisan scholarship. We count among our ranks over 100 affiliated scholars located throughout the nation and the world who appear regularly in national and international media, testify on Capitol Hill, and are consulted by U.S. -
The Impact of Western Sanctions on Russia and How They Can Be Made Even More Effective
The impact of Western sanctions on Russia and how they can be made even more effective REPORT By Anders Åslund and Maria Snegovaya While Western sanctions have not succeeded in forcing the Kremlin to fully reverse its actions and end aggression in Ukraine, the economic impact of financial sanctions on Russia has been greater than previously understood. Dr. Anders Åslund is a resident senior fellow in the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council. He also teaches at Georgetown University. He is a leading specialist on economic policy in Russia, Ukraine, and East Europe. Dr. Maria Snegovaya is a non-resident fellow at the Eurasia Center, a visiting scholar with the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies at the George Washington University; and a postdoctoral scholar with the Kellogg Center for Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. THE IMPACT OF WESTERN SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA AND HOW MAY 2021 THEY CAN BE MADE EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE Key points While Western sanctions have not succeeded in forcing the Kremlin to fully reverse its actions and end aggression in Ukraine, the economic impact of financial sanctions on Russia has been greater than previously understood. Western sanctions on Russia have been quite effective in two regards. First, they stopped Vladimir Putin’s preannounced military offensive into Ukraine in the summer of 2014. Second, sanctions have hit the Russian economy badly. Since 2014, it has grown by an average of 0.3 percent per year, while the global average was 2.3 percent per year. They have slashed foreign credits and foreign direct investment, and may have reduced Russia’s economic growth by 2.5–3 percent a year; that is, about $50 billion per year. -
RUSSIA WATCH No.2, August 2000 Graham T
RUSSIA WATCH No.2, August 2000 Graham T. Allison, Director Editor: Ben Dunlap Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project Production Director: Melissa C..Carr John F. Kennedy School of Government Researcher: Emily Van Buskirk Harvard University Production Assistant: Emily Goodhue SPOTLIGHT ON RUSSIA’S OLIGARCHS On July 28 Russian President Vladimir Putin met with 21 of Russia’s most influ- ential businessmen to “redefine the relationship between the state and big busi- ness.” At that meeting, Putin assured the tycoons that privatization results would remained unchallenged, but stopped far short of offering a general amnesty for crimes committed in that process. He opened the meeting by saying: “I only want to draw your attention straightaway to the fact that you have yourselves formed this very state, to a large extent through political and quasi-political structures under your control.” Putin assured the oligarchs that recent investi- The Kremlin roundtable comes at a crucial time for the oligarchs. In the last gations were not part of a policy of attacking big business, but said he would not try to restrict two months, many of them have found themselves subjects of investigations prosecutors who launch such cases. by the General Prosecutor’s Office, Tax Police, and Federal Security Serv- ice. After years of cozying up to the government, buying up the state’s most valuable resources in noncompetitive bidding, receiving state-guaranteed loans with little accountability, and flouting the country’s tax laws with imp u- nity, the heads of some of Russia’s leading financial-industrial groups have been thrust under the spotlight. -
US Sanctions on Russia
U.S. Sanctions on Russia Updated January 17, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45415 SUMMARY R45415 U.S. Sanctions on Russia January 17, 2020 Sanctions are a central element of U.S. policy to counter and deter malign Russian behavior. The United States has imposed sanctions on Russia mainly in response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Cory Welt, Coordinator Ukraine, to reverse and deter further Russian aggression in Ukraine, and to deter Russian Specialist in European aggression against other countries. The United States also has imposed sanctions on Russia in Affairs response to (and to deter) election interference and other malicious cyber-enabled activities, human rights abuses, the use of a chemical weapon, weapons proliferation, illicit trade with North Korea, and support to Syria and Venezuela. Most Members of Congress support a robust Kristin Archick Specialist in European use of sanctions amid concerns about Russia’s international behavior and geostrategic intentions. Affairs Sanctions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are based mainly on four executive orders (EOs) that President Obama issued in 2014. That year, Congress also passed and President Rebecca M. Nelson Obama signed into law two acts establishing sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Specialist in International Ukraine: the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Trade and Finance Ukraine Act of 2014 (SSIDES; P.L. 113-95/H.R. 4152) and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (UFSA; P.L. 113-272/H.R. 5859). Dianne E. Rennack Specialist in Foreign Policy In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Countering Russian Influence Legislation in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L. -
Monitoring Oil Spill in Norilsk, Russia Using Satellite Data Sankaran Rajendran1*, Fadhil N
www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Monitoring oil spill in Norilsk, Russia using satellite data Sankaran Rajendran1*, Fadhil N. Sadooni1, Hamad Al‑Saad Al‑Kuwari1, Anisimov Oleg2, Himanshu Govil3, Sobhi Nasir4 & Ponnumony Vethamony1 This paper studies the oil spill, which occurred in the Norilsk and Taimyr region of Russia due to the collapse of the fuel tank at the power station on May 29, 2020. We monitored the snow, ice, water, vegetation and wetland of the region using data from the Multi‑Spectral Instruments (MSI) of Sentinel‑2 satellite. We analyzed the spectral band absorptions of Sentinel‑2 data acquired before, during and after the incident, developed true and false‑color composites (FCC), decorrelated spectral bands and used the indices, i.e. Snow Water Index (SWI), Normalized Diference Water Index (NDWI) and Normalized Diference Vegetation Index (NDVI). The results of decorrelated spectral bands 3, 8, and 11 of Sentinel‑2 well confrmed the results of SWI, NDWI, NDVI, and FCC images showing the intensive snow and ice melt between May 21 and 31, 2020. We used Sentinel‑2 results, feld photographs, analysis of the 1980–2020 daily air temperature and precipitation data, permafrost observations and modeling to explore the hypothesis that either the long‑term dynamics of the frozen ground, changing climate and environmental factors, or abnormal weather conditions may have caused or contributed to the collapse of the oil tank. Te oil spill detection and tracking through satellite sensors have remarkable advances in utilizing the visible, shortwave to thermal infrared (optical) and the microwave radar bands. Surface identifcation and mapping of an oil spill are essential to evaluate the potential spread and foat from the source to the adjacent areas or endpoints1,2.