They are looking for a Russian trace in Rusal – Newspaper Kommersant No. 226 (7427) of 06.12.
[ad_1]
In order to challenge the transfer of its 20% stake in Queensland Alumina (QAL) to Rio Tinto, Rusal must document that it did not supply Australian-produced alumina to Russia and did not pay taxes in the Russian Federation on profits from the sale of Australian raw aluminum. The Australian court also requested documents on the connection of the aluminum company not only with the Russian budget, but also with businessmen under sanctions. According to lawyers, the list of requested documents is not excessive and does not allow suspecting the court of bias.
The Federal Court of Australia requested a number of documents from Rusal related to the supply of Queensland Alumina (QAL) alumina and the aluminum company’s relationship with the Russian government, follows from the court’s data.
The documents are requested as part of a lawsuit filed by Rusal’s Australian subsidiary Alumina and Bauxite Company (ABC), which owned 20% of QAL, against Rio Tinto, which owned the remaining 80% of the company’s shares. Rio Tinto gained full control of QAL in April, but Rusal filed a lawsuit in June seeking to regain access to its 20% stake (see “Kommersant” of June 6). The company believes that Rio Tinto misused the terms of the JV agreement, allowing it to take control of a 20 percent stake in QAL in the event that the Russian company is subject to sanctions. But Rusal does not fall under any sanctions.
Australia in March banned the supply of alumina and bauxite to Russia. According to the November decision, the court is waiting for documents from Rusal containing data on measures to redirect QAL alumina, originally intended for Russia, to a recipient not associated with Rusal’s Russian alumina refineries. In addition, Rusal must document that it has taken measures to store QAL alumina in China. A number of documents are aimed at establishing a connection between Rusal and Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg. In addition, the court is interested in the question of whether Rusal paid taxes on sales of QAL alumina to the Russian budget.
Rusal’s commodity security is under pressure not only because of the loss of Australian supplies. There are no shipments of alumina from the Nikolaev plant in Ukraine, where the capacity was 1.8 million tons, or 20% of Rusal’s alumina production. As follows from the draft strategy for the development of the metallurgical industry until 2030, Russia covers only 35% of the demand for alumina for aluminum production. The remaining 65% is dependent on imports, which, according to the document, are experiencing disruptions due to problems with maritime logistics and other external economic risks. To reduce dependence on Chinese alumina, a project is under consideration to build an alumina refinery in Ust-Luga with the commissioning of new facilities within seven years. This is not a new project, since Rusal considered building an aluminum and alumina transshipment terminal jointly with the port, but abandoned the project in 2013.
AB EMPP partner Vladislav Egorov believes that the process is now at the stage of disclosure of evidence by the parties. He notes that “the ban on the export of alumina, of course, does not allow Rusal to take away the share of alumina produced corresponding to its share” and the dispute may not be about the expropriation of a 20 percent share in QAL, but about the impossibility of obtaining physical alumina at the moment. At the same time, the lawyer of the Baltic Bar Association named after Anatoly Sobchak, Elena Mende, does not consider the volume of the requested documents to be excessive. “Taking into account the increased level of compliance, the court plans to establish not only direct, but also indirect relationships with sanctioned persons both at the date of filing the claim and in previous periods,” she explains. sanctions.” She notes that it is possible to suspect court bias only after a detailed study of the claim and documents of the joint venture.
[ad_2]
Source link
