DOCSLIB.ORG

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK DEAN FREDERICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK DEAN FREDERICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) DEAN FREDERICK, Individually and On Behalf ) of All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ) ) MECHEL OAO, IGOR V. ZYUZIN, ) STANISLAV A. PLOSCHENKO and ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VLADIMIR A. POLIN, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, Dean Frederick (“Plaintiff”), alleges the following based upon the investigation by Plaintiff’s counsel, which included, among other things, a review of the defendants’ public documents, conference calls and announcements made by defendants, United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding Mechel OAO (“Mechel” or the “Company”), securities analysts’ reports and advisories about the Company, and information readily available on the Internet, and Plaintiff believes that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW 1. This is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of Mechel’s securities between October 3, 2007 and July 25, 2008, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 1 2. Mechel is a vertically integrated mining and metals company. The Company consists of several business segments, including coal and steel production. Mechel’s mining business consists of coal, iron ore and nickel mines in Russia. The Company’s steel business includes the production and sale of semi-finished steel products, carbon and specialty long products, carbon and stainless flat products and downstream metal products. 3. On July 24, 2008, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for antitrust authorities to investigate Mechel’s raw material pricing policy, and in particular its coking coal sales, as the Company had sold raw materials to customers in Russia at twice that it had sold raw materials to non-Russian customers. Prime Minister Putin also recommended that Mechel’s profit margins needed to be examined by the antitrust authorities, and “if need be,” by the special committee of the General Prosecutor. On this news, the Company’s shares fell $13.77 per share, or over 37.6 percent, to close on July 24, 2008 at $22.84 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. 4. The following day, Mechel announced that it was “ready for cooperation with federal authorities.” Significantly, Mechel did not protest Prime Minister Putin’s allegations about the Company’s pricing policies when it announced its intention to cooperate in the investigation. Reuters also reported that Mechel’s pricing policy was subject to an ongoing investigation by Russian anti-monopoly authorities, and quoted Mechel as stating that it “would never again charge a different price for coking coal on the domestic market than it did abroad.” 5. Then on July 28, 2008, Prime Minister Putin also revealed that Mechel had also used offshore traders to minimize tax payments. According to the Prime Minister, Mechel sold coal to a Swiss trading unit at a quarter of domestic prices, contributing to a coal shortage and higher steel prices in Russia. The Associated Press quoted Prime Minister Putin as stating that “it’s a reduction of the tax base within the country, it’s tax evasion. It’s creating a shortage on the 2 domestic market and leads to an increase in the price of metallurgical products.” The head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (“FAS”) also stated that “the Company must be punished,” as the FAS had opened a case following an investigation into whether Mechel had fixed coking coal prices, and “had enough evidence” to fine Mechel for its violations. On this news, the Company’s shares fell $6.70 per share, or over 25.5 percent, to close on July 28, 2008 at $19.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. 6. On August 14, 2008, Mechel was found guilty by the FAS of breaking competition laws and faced a stiff fine from regulators as a result of its conduct. The FAS stated that Mechel discriminated against Russian consumers, “unreasonably refused contracts,’’ and maintained a monopoly in the coal market. According to a Bloomberg article reporting on this development, abusing a dominant position in the marketplace was punishable by a fine of up to 15 percent of the previous year’s sales in the market where the violation occurred. Additionally, according to Bloomberg, the FAS planned to order Mechel to switch to long-term contracts starting in 2009. Significantly, Bloomberg reported that the FAS started its investigation into Mechel after receiving complaints from numerous steelmakers about the Company. 7. On August 19, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the FAS had ordered Mechel to cut tariffs on its coking coal by 15 percent, to pay a fine of $32 million for price- fixing, and to cut prices on coking coal by 15 percent. 8. Finally, on September 1, 2008, Reuters reported that Mechel was ordered by regulators to cut prices and sign long-term supply deals for coking coal with its main local clients. As a result of Mechel’s conduct, the FAS required the Company to sign long-term deals with three major steel companies for 2009 – 2013, and to provide prices under those long term deals “at a discount to global coking coal prices.” Vedomosti, a business daily, reported that the prices Mechel would have to provide its goods at would be at a discount of 20-35 percent to 3 those offered under contracts by Mechel’s competitors, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Mechel also agreed to slash domestic prices by 15 percent under contracts reached between September 2008 and December 31, 2008 as a further remedy. 9. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company had engaged in anticompetitive conduct by employing a discriminatory pricing policy for raw material sales between domestic and foreign steel firms; (2) that the Company had engaged in monopolistic conduct by fixing and maintaining coking coal prices at artificially high levels and unreasonably refusing contracts; (3) that as the Company’s anticompetitive and monopolistic practices were discovered, the Company would incur a significant level of fines, and would be forced to enter into long term coking coal supply contracts below market prices; (4) that a portion of the Company’s revenue was derived from anticompetitive and monopolistic conduct, and when such behavior was discovered, the Company’s revenue would significantly decline in future periods; (5) that the Company had used a sophisticated sales and distribution scheme involving wholly owned offshore trading companies to evade paying taxes on a portion of its revenue; (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (7) that the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”); and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 10. As a result of defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 11. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5). 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 13. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Mechel’s securities actively trade on the New York Stock Exchange in this District, and the Company has appointed CT Corporation Systems, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY as its “authorized agent upon which process may be served for any suit or proceeding arising out of or relating to our shares, as well as the ADSs and the GDSs or the deposit agreement related thereto.” 14. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint, defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including but not limited to, the United States mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the national securities exchange. PARTIES 15. Plaintiff, Dean Frederick, as set forth in the accompanying certification, incorporated by reference herein, purchased Mechel’s securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. 16. Defendant Mechel is a Russian Federation company with its principal executive offices located at Krasnoarmeyskaya Street 1, Moscow 125993, Russian Federation. Defendant Mechel may be served c/o CT Corporation Systems, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY. 17. Defendant Igor V. Zyuzin (“Zyuzin”) was, at all relevant times, the Company’s 5 Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Defendant Zyuzin may be served c/o CT Corporation Systems, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY. 18. Defendant Stanislav A. Ploschenko (“Ploschenko”) was, at all relevant times, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). Defendant Ploschenko may be served c/o CT Corporation Systems, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY. 19. Defendant Vladimir A. Polin (“Polin”) was, at all relevant times, the CEO of Mechel Management Company OOO, a Mechel subsidiary, and a member of Mechel’s Board of Directors. Defendant Polin may be served c/o CT Corporation Systems, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Chairman, I Welcome the Opportunity to Appear Before The
    Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Helsinki Commission to discuss the current situation in Russia and the concerns of all of us about the Putin government and the future of Russia. First, I wish to emphasize the value of the Commission’s mandate and stated criteria to promote compliance with the fundamental standards of civil society in Russia and the other former Soviet republics. Second, those of us who have witnessed first-hand the travesty of justice in Russia much appreciate the concerns expressed by the co-chairmen about the improper handling of the Yukos trial and the sentencing of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his colleagues by Russian authorities. Your formal statement to the world’s press that the “case appears to the world to be justice directed by politics” and that the “selective prosecution such as appears to be the case here will wreak havoc on Russia’s legal system” reflects that the chairmen of this commission have an accurate view of the Khodorkovsky trial and the weakened state of the legal system in Russia. Third, it is vitally important that the Helsinki Commission continue monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords as they relate to Russia and report its findings to the public. While the U.S. Administration and Congressional leaders must necessarily balance many variables in the bilateral relationship, the Helsinki Commission has a clear mandate to insure that human rights and basic freedoms are maintained in the countries under its jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the rule of law is the cornerstone of civil society because it serves to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Severstal Press Release ENG
    PRESS RELEASE Paris, June 3, 2021 Air Liquide and Severstal extend their partnership with a new long-term contract in major oxygen site in continental Europe Air Liquide and PAO Severstal, one of the leading steel producers, have signed a new long-term contract for the supply of oxygen to the Severstal CherMK site in Russia. Air Liquide will invest around 60 million euros in the construction of a state-of-the-art Air Separation Unit (ASU) on the site, one of the largest oxygen sites in continental Europe, where it already owns three other ASUs. Thanks to enhanced energy efficiency, this new unit will improve the overall environmental footprint. Air Liquide will design and build a new state-of-the-art ASU on the Severstal CherMK site in Cherepovets, one of the most competitive steel making sites worldwide. The new unit will produce 1,000 tons of oxygen per day. This is the fourth ASU installed by Air Liquide in Cherepovets. Planned to be started up by the end of 2023, the unit will be owned and operated by Air Liquide Severstal, a joint venture established in 2005 between Air Liquide (75%) and Severstal (25%). It will bring the total production capacity on this site, one of the largest sites for Oxygen production in continental Europe, at above 8,000 tonnes of oxygen per day. This new ASU is characterized by improved energy efficiency. In the framework of the agreement the two companies have also committed to further reduce the CO2 emissions arising from the oxygen production, in line with Air Liquide’s commitments to address the urgency of climate change and to act for a sustainable future.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Withholding Tax Refund
    Russian withholding tax refund Tax & Legal If you or your clients invested in Russian securities and are entitled to a substantial dividend or interest income, there is a chance that you overpaid your taxes and may qualify for a tax refund © 2018 Deloitte Consulting LLC Background Investors may apply a According to the The Russian The tax refund reduced tax rate for Russian tax withholding tax rate is practice in Russia is their interest and/or authorities, they are set at 15% on not well-developed: dividend income, ready to reimburse dividends and 20 the tax legislation depending on the overpaid taxes, if a percent on interest. does not provide for a conditions set by the full package of Effective from 1 specific list of Russian Tax Code or documents confirming January 2014, the documents to be applicable Double Tax the income payment duties of the tax collected and Treaties. Calculations chain and the agent for WHT requirements to be of a standard Russian investor’s rights to purposes were met. For these rate or the standard the income is transferred to the reasons, the process reduced Double Tax submitted. local Russian can be lengthy and Treaty rate, as well as custodian or, in a sometimes fruitless. submission of claims limited number of However, the trend is on tax can be cases, to the reassuring: the refunded, should be fiduciary, broker or number of successful made by investors issuer. refund claims and themselves within positive court three calendar years, decisions is growing. following the year in which it was withheld.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008-062 Russia's Emerging Multinationals
    Working Paper Series #2008-062 RUSSIA’S EMERGING MULTINATIONALS: TRENDS AND ISSUES Sergey Filippov United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology Keizer Karelplein 19, 6211 TC Maastricht, The Netherlands 1 Tel: (31) (43) 388 4400, Fax: (31) (43) 388 4499, e-mail: [email protected], URL: http://www.merit.unu.edu 2 RUSSIA’S EMERGING MULTINATIONALS: TRENDS AND ISSUES Sergey Filippov UNU-MERIT (United Nations University and Maastricht University) Keizer Karelplein 19, Maastricht, 6211TC, The Netherlands Tel: +31 43 3884400, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The paper focuses on the emergence of Russia’s multinational companies. It aims to analyse their motives to internationalise as well as the approaches to internationalisation. While relevance of the theoretical perspectives is highlighted, the intention of the paper is to contribute to the understanding of the present-day phenomenon of emerging Russian multinationals; a phenomenon that has been largely overshadowed by the remarkable rise of Chinese and Indian companies. A special attention is devoted to the R&D activities of Russian multinational companies, and access to foreign technology as a driver of corporate restructuring. A discussion of the challenges and opportunities for host countries and policy implications is provided. Keywords: Russia, multinational companies, emerging economies, foreign investment JEL codes: F21, F23, L21, O32 UNU-MERIT Working Papers ISSN 1871-9872 Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology, UNU-MERIT UNU-MERIT Working Papers intend to disseminate preliminary results of research carried out at the Centre to stimulate discussion on the issues raised.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Expansion of Russian Multinationals After the Crisis: Results of 2011
    Global Expansion of Russian Multinationals after the Crisis: Results of 2011 Report dated April 16, 2013 Moscow and New York, April 16, 2013 The Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, and the Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment (VCC), a joint center of Columbia Law School and the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York, are releasing the results of their third survey of Russian multinationals today.1 The survey, conducted from November 2012 to February 2013, is part of a long-term study of the global expansion of emerging market non-financial multinational enterprises (MNEs).2 The present report covers the period 2009-2011. Highlights Russia is one of the leading emerging markets in terms of outward foreign direct investments (FDI). Such a position is supported not by several multinational giants but by dozens of Russian MNEs in various industries. Foreign assets of the top 20 Russian non-financial MNEs grew every year covered by this report and reached US$ 111 billion at the end of 2011 (Table 1). Large Russian exporters usually use FDI in support of their foreign activities. As a result, oil and gas and steel companies with considerable exports are among the leading Russian MNEs. However, representatives of other industries also have significant foreign assets. Many companies remained “regional” MNEs. As a result, more than 66% of the ranked companies’ foreign assets were in Europe and Central Asia, with 28% in former republics of the Soviet Union (Annex table 2). Due to the popularity of off-shore jurisdictions to Russian MNEs, some Caribbean islands and Cyprus attracted many Russian subsidiaries with low levels of foreign assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release (PDF)
    MECHEL REPORTS THE FY2020 FINANCIAL RESULTS Consolidated revenue – 265.5 bln rubles (-8% compared to FY 2019) EBITDA* – 41.1 bln rubles (-23% compared to FY 2019) Profit attributable to equity shareholders of Mechel PAO – 808 mln rubles Moscow, Russia – March 11, 2021 – Mechel PAO (MOEX: MTLR, NYSE: MTL), a leading Russian mining and steel group, announces financial results for the FY 2020. Mechel PAO’s Chief Executive Officer Oleg Korzhov commented: “The Group’s consolidated revenue in 2020 totaled 265.5 billion rubles, which is 8% less compared to 2019. EBITDA amounted to 41.1 billion rubles, which is 23% less year-on-year. “The mining division accounted for about 60% of the decrease in revenue. This was due to a significant decrease in coal prices year-on-year. In conditions of coronavirus limitations, many steelmakers around the world cut down on production, which could not fail to affect the demand for metallurgical coals and their price accordingly. By the year’s end the market demonstrated signs of a recovery, but due to China’s restrictions on Australian coal imports, coal prices outside on China remained low under this pressure. High prices in China have supported our mining division’s revenue to a certain extent. In 4Q2020 we increased shipments to China as best we could considering our long-term contractual obligations to partners from other countries. These circumstances became in many ways the reason for a decrease in our consolidated EBITDA. In Mechel’s other divisions EBITDA dynamics were positive year-on-year. “The decrease in the steel division’s revenue was also due to the coronavirus pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • HEDGE EFFECTIVENESS of the RTS INDEX FUTURES Anastasia Musorgina a Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina in Part
    HEDGE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RTS INDEX FUTURES Anastasia Musorgina A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration Cameron School of Business University of North Carolina Wilmington 2011 Approved by Advisory Committee Nivine Richie Rob Burrus Cetin Ciner Chair Accepted by _____________________________ Dean, Graduate School TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Hedging .................................................................................................................................. 1 Russian Derivatives Market ................................................................................................... 2 Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Financial Times Executive Education Rankings: a 360‐Degree Review
    Understanding the Financial Times Executive Education Rankings: A 360‐Degree Review Original Research Sponsored by September 12, 2015 Tom Cavers, James Pulcrano, Jenny Stine Preface: UNICON statement accompanying the research report Understanding the Financial Times Executive Education Rankings: A 360-Degree Review UNICON – The International University Consortium for Executive Education UNICON is a global consortium of business-school-based executive education organizations. Its primary activities include conferences, research, benchmarking, sharing of best practices, staff development, recruitment/job postings, information-sharing, and extensive networking among members, all centered on the business and practice of business-school-based executive education. The UNICON Research Committee The UNICON Research Committee advises the UNICON Board of Directors on research priorities, cultivates a network of research resources and manages the overall research pipeline and projects. The Research Committee is made up of volunteers from UNICON’s member organizations. UNICON Research Report: Understanding the Financial Times Executive Education Rankings: A 360- Degree Review The Financial Times (FT) annual rankings of non-degree Executive Education providers are the best known and most discussed in the industry. In late 2014, the UNICON Research Committee commissioned and the UNICON Board approved the UNICON research project “Understanding the Financial Times Executive Education Rankings: A 360-Degree Review” in large measure to better understand and address many recurring questions about the FT’s ranking system. UNICON is a diverse organization, with representation from over 100 schools. In addition to size and geography, schools are diversified by the expertise, reputation and strength of their faculty, the types and sizes of their customers, and increasingly the breadth and depth of their executive education portfolios.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Economic Prospects in the Asia Pacific Region
    Journal of Eurasian Studies 7 (2016) 49–59 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Eurasian Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/euras Russia’s economic prospects in the Asia Pacific Region Stephen Fortescue University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Russia has declared a priority interest in developing a strong economic relationship with Received 25 November 2014 the Asia Pacific Region. There has been considerable internal debate over the best strate- Accepted 15 May 2015 gic approach to such a relationship. While a policy victory has been won by a strategy focusing Available online 29 October 2015 on the export into the region of manufactured goods and services, a resource-export strat- egy is still dominant in practice and funding. Here the prospects of each strategy are assessed. Keywords: Regarding resource exports, hydrocarbons, copper and iron ore prospects are reviewed, but Russian Far East most detail is provided on the coal sector. That involves an account of infrastructure issues, Asia Pacific Region Coal exports including a major debate over the expansion of the BAM and TransSiberian railways. The BAM analysis suggests that Russia will struggle both to revitalise the Russian Far East through TransSiberian railway manufacturing exports to the APR and to replace revenues earned through resource exports to the West through an economic ‘turn to the East’. Copyright © 2015 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Asia-Pacific Research Center, Hanyang University. 1. Introduction The new priority has produced a fierce policy debate (Fortescue, 2015), behind which is a tension between two In recent years Russia has – not for the first time – de- reasons for economic engagement with the APR.
    [Show full text]