Rosneft demanded 6 billion rubles from Transneft
[ad_1]
Rosneft (MOEX: ROSN) as part of a legal dispute with Transneft about payment for pumping through a new oil pipeline to its plant in Tuapse, it demands more than 6 billion rubles from the pipeline company. The monopoly itself filed a lawsuit against Rosneft in the summer for a more modest amount – 4.8 billion rubles. including penalties. Both lawsuits will be considered together; lawyers consider the companies to have equal chances of winning and doubt that the proceedings will be completed quickly.
The Moscow Arbitration Court, in its ruling, revealed the details of Rosneft’s counterclaim against Transneft, filed on January 16. In particular, the oil company is asking to recover more than 6.1 billion rubles from the pipeline monopoly. losses, but the reasons for their occurrence are not indicated in the document. In the original statement of claim, filed in August, Transneft demanded 4.8 billion rubles from Rosneft. debts for pumping oil. The court consolidated the claims for joint consideration. The next hearing where the case will be considered on its merits is scheduled for January 31. The companies do not comment on the situation.
As a Rosneft lawyer stated at a preliminary meeting in November, the dispute is related to the construction of a new branch of the Tikhoretsk-Tuapse-2 oil pipeline in the Krasnodar Territory to pump additional volumes to the oil company’s refineries. To implement the project, the parties entered into an agreement establishing a tariff for the transportation of raw materials, the proceeds of which would be used to finance construction. Construction was completed at the end of 2014, but when filling the pipe with process oil, an accident occurred at the 242nd kilometer of the oil pipeline with depressurization and subsequent spill with oil emulsion entering the Tuapse River and the Black Sea. Despite work to restore the damaged section, the new line has not yet been put into operation.
At the same time, Rosneft assures that the company even earlier, in 2012, agreed with Transneft to suspend tariff payments until it received a state examination report (which was received only in October 2022).
As a Rosneft representative assured, the contract for pumping oil was concluded separately for 2012, and there is no debt under it. Subsequently, it was planned to conclude an additional agreement with an adjusted tariff. But the parties still cannot agree on it, since the cost of construction has increased significantly over the years 2012–2022.
In turn, Transneft insists that transportation services under the contract were not fully paid, which resulted in a debt of more than 3.7 billion rubles. As a representative of the pipeline company stated at the preliminary meeting, the parties signed reconciliation acts and Rosneft at that moment fully recognized the debt, but then stopped signing the acts and paying money. The amount of the claim, according to him, takes into account the accumulated penalties for late tariff payments.
As reported by the FAS, Transneft sent there an application to set a long-term rate for oil transportation along the Tikhoretsk-Tuapse-2 route at 178.3 rubles. per ton, which is 11% higher than last year’s level. The regulator explained to Interfax that the long-term tariff is set within the framework of an agreement signed in 2013 by Rosneft and Transneft. The FAS noted that the document allows for changes in the tariff due to inflation and in connection with changes in property tax payments.
Partner at the law firm Rustam Kurmaev and Partners, Dmitry Kletochkin, calls the case “difficult” and believes that the dispute will not be resolved very soon. In his opinion, the parties have equal chances of winning. At the same time, he believes that new details will probably appear in the case. Now, according to him, one can only state that reconciliation acts are not perceived by the courts as evidence of debt, it is an auxiliary tool. If transportation services were provided, then the relevant documents about this transportation must be present in the case as evidence – acts of receipt of oil, acts of their delivery at the final point, because all products passing through pipelines must be taken into account, reminds Mr. Kletochkin.
[ad_2]
Source link