Rusal brings Roman Abramovich to court with Vladimir Potanin
[ad_1]
Rusal (MOEX: RUAL), who filed a lawsuit in a London court to recover damages from Norilsk Nickel President Vladimir Potanin, asks to involve Roman Abramovich in the process as a third party. According to lawyers, the plaintiff is counting on Mr. Abramovich to support his claims. So far, the trial is being delayed due to the need to obtain sanctions permits, since both Vladimir Potanin and Roman Abramovich are under British sanctions. At the same time, both parties are preparing additional claims against each other.
Rusal petitioned for Roman Abramovich to join the legal dispute with the co-owner and president of Norilsk Nickel Vladimir Potanin and his company Whiteleave Crispian Investments Limited, according to documents from the High Court of London. Rusal told Kommersant that the involvement of Mr. Abramovich is necessary to consider the company’s claims. Interros of Vladimir Potanin and the press service of Roman Abramovich did not provide comments. The court will consider Rusal’s petition in February.
According to Rusal’s lawsuit, filed in October 2022, under the leadership of Vladimir Potanin, Norilsk Nickel lost a number of key assets, which led to losses for the company and its shareholders, including Rusal. In particular, according to Kommersant’s sources, the NordStar airline, the Industrial Construction and Installation Company and the operator of transport and logistics services “Logistic Center” are mentioned. Rusal demands the resignation of Vladimir Potanin from the position of managing partner of Norilsk Nickel, as well as compensation for losses. According to the shareholder agreement, in case of significant violations, the offending party may purchase 1.875% of Norilsk Nickel shares for $1 or 7.5% of shares at a 25% discount from the market price.
Roman Abramovich was a party to the Norilsk Nickel shareholder agreement, which Rusal accuses Vladimir Potanin of violating. In 2012, he acted as a peacemaker in the conflict between Interros and Rusal, the two largest shareholders of Norilsk Nickel. As part of the agreement, Crispian between Mr. Abramovich and Alexander Abramov acquired from the conflicting parties a 5.87% stake in Norilsk Nickel for $1.487 billion. She transferred this stake to a special account in an agent bank, and Rusal and Interros temporarily transferred approximately 7.5% shares of Norilsk Nickel. Thanks to this package, Crispian became the guarantor of the shareholder agreement and balanced the interests of the parties at shareholder meetings. The shareholders’ agreement expired in 2022.
According to Rusal, the court order, issued by agreement of the parties, provides for a further suspension of the dispute to enable the defendants to obtain sanctioned licenses and provide legal representation in court. Both Vladimir Potanin and Roman Abramovich are under UK sanctions.
At the same time, the parties to the dispute are demonstrating a readiness for escalation: as follows from court documents, Vladimir Potanin and his company may file counterclaims against Rusal. Rusal also has similar plans.
“Apparently, the plaintiff believes that the people he wants to involve in the case will support his position,” says Ilya Rachkov, partner at the NSP law office. “If they present a united front in the English court, the defendants will have a hard time.” He clarifies that in March Rusal will have to submit to the court a detailed statement of claim, which should clarify in whose favor it is asking for damages – its own, Norilsk Nickel or both companies.
If the claim is satisfied by the London court, for its execution in the Russian Federation, it is necessary to go through the recognition procedure in the Russian state court, explains Ilya Rachkov. In general, in his opinion, there is a chance for this, and “previously, Russian courts have repeatedly recognized and executed decisions of English courts on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.” Meanwhile, Mr. Rachkov does not exclude that the Russian court will consider the execution of a decision made by a court of an “unfriendly country” to be contrary to the public order of the Russian Federation, and “the concept of “public order of the Russian Federation” is quite flexible, and many different meanings can be packed into it.”
Another turn is possible in the case. Managing Partner of Enterprise Legal Solutions Yuri Fedyukin believes that Art. 248.1 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on the jurisdiction of disputes involving sanctioned persons allows Mr. Potanin to ask the Russian court to consider the dispute in Russia and prohibit the continuation of the proceedings in the English court.
[ad_2]
Source link
