Will Vekselberg leave Russia after Faberge eggs? - Russian Criminal
The source of the telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU said that billionaire Viktor Vekselberg, in conditions of increased secrecy, through representatives and lobbyists, is negotiating the possibility of lifting some of the sanctions imposed by the United States on him. At least the lifting of the ban on entry into the States. The oligarch decided to leave Russia, gradually took out a collection of Faberge eggs, but could not settle in the United States, where his family lives. In addition to the ban on doing business with the Americans and isolation from the American financial system, Vekselberg also has a ban on entering the United States. The billionaire is considering settling in other countries, but the main goal is the United States. “He’s ready for almost everything, just to be able to move to New York,” the source said. However, the list of questions and claims of Americans to Vekselberg is still very long. And still the billionaire Viktor Vekselberg owes to the former Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Abyzov more than $ 1 billion, but does not give it back.
Об этом сообщает Russiangate
The telegram channel Sovinformburo 2.0 clarifies that billionaire Viktor Vekselberg owes more than $ 1 billion to former Russian Minister Mikhail Abyzov, but does not give it back.
These two events are related. In the United States, Vekselberg believes that he is very closely connected with the Russian authorities and law enforcement agencies. And the story of Ablyazov is the best confirmation of this. The former minister was sent to jail in the midst of his proceedings with Vekselberg. Moreover, after Ablyazov was arrested, Vekselberg tried to postpone the trial to Russia. “Ablyazov has a lot of questions for Vekselberg in connection with the arrest, all the more the latter has been seen earlier in using the security forces to solve his problems,” sources say Rucriminal.info.
The dispute over the shares of T Plus (formerly IES-Holding) began 13 years ago — in 2006, when Abyzov resigned as managing director of RAO UES and became an investor in Vekselberg’s IES-holding.
In late 2013, Vekselberg sued the British Virgin Islands (BVI) court. He demanded to invalidate the option agreement with Abyzov, which was concluded in September 2011. The ex-minister of the Open Government filed a counterclaim against Renova Industries and other Vekselberg firms. According to Abyzov, the former partner owed him $ 451 million in the same deal.
The lawsuit noted that earlier in the transaction, the parties verbally agreed on the distribution of shares in IES: Abyzov owned 41.65% of the holding, Vekselberg — 43.35%, and the remaining 15% should be shared between Vekselberg and IES General Director Mikhail Slobodin .
Abyzov’s investments are confirmed by loans: from 2006 to 2008, the organizations under his control provided $ 380 million at 9.6% per annum directly to IES and other Vekselberg companies — Lamesa Holding and Integrated Energy Systems. The total amount of loans corresponded to the share of Abyzov in the capital of IES Holding.
In 2009, Lamesa Holding, owned by Vekselberg, proposed buying up shares in TGKs and OGKs, which is why Abyzov’s stake in IES Holding fell below the verbally agreed 41.65%. And by the end of 2010, nothing boded ill, but Vekselberg decided to sell IES to Gazenergenergoholding for $ 4 billion. Abyzov, learning about this, decided to insure himself and arrange with Vekselberg to get an optional put out of IES at a price of $ 451 million. The amount was lower than the value of Abyzov’s share in the event of the sale of IES-holding to Gazpromenergoholding, but its size corresponded to Abyzov’s investments in IES with interest.
In December 2011, the deal fell through because the parties did not agree on a price. Meanwhile, Abyzov’s share in IES-holding was never registered, but Vekselberg repeatedly confirmed that Abyzov has an option.
Subsequently, Abyzov went to the civil service and transferred his assets to trust.
Since 2013, the parties exchanged several counterclaims on the territory of the offshore BVI. Vekselberg demanded to cancel the option, Abyzov — compensation for losses.
On the eve of Abyzov’s arrest, the British Virgin Islands court considered an economic dispute, in which Abyzov announced additional claims against Vekselberg for damages due to failure to fulfill obligations under an oral agreement of 2006. Vekselberg filed a lawsuit in the Gagarinsky court of Moscow with a demand to recognize the oral agreement as not concluded. But lost. Soon after, Abyzov went to jail.
At the disposal of Rucriminal.info were judicial materials, which we publish.
"Vekselberg V.F. He appealed to the court to Abyzov M.A. on recognition of the contract as not concluded.
In support of the stated claims, the plaintiff indicated that the commercial division of the British Virgin Islands Supreme Court of Justice of the East Caribbean Supreme Court is considering an economic dispute that originally arose between foreign legal entities.
In the framework of this dispute, M. Abyzov additional claims to Vekselberg V.F. for damages and losses caused to M. Abyzov as a result of default Vekselberg V.F. obligations stipulated by the oral agreement of 2006, which, as directed by M. Abyzov It was concluded between them regarding the organization of a joint business in the electric power industry. The specified oral agreement in the framework of the claims stated in this lawsuit, the plaintiff asks to be recognized as not concluded.
The court decided the above definition, the cancellation of which asks Vekselberg V.F. represented by the representative Zaitsev V.V. A.E. on the grounds of a private complaint, referring to its illegality and groundlessness.
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 333 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation a private complaint was considered without notice to the applicant.
The Judicial Board, having discussed the arguments of the private complaint, having checked the materials received with it, as well as the objections of the defendant’s representative, received through the expedition of the appellate court with a copy of the decision of the High Court of Justice of the British Virgin Islands of the East Caribbean Supreme Court with the corresponding translation into Russian, concludes on the abolition of the determination on the following grounds.
Refusing to accept the claim V.F. Vekselberg, the trial court, citing the provisions of paragraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Art. 134 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, I came to the conclusion that the stated requirements are not subject to consideration in civil proceedings, since their permission is subordinate to the arbitral tribunal ....
At the same time, it is seen from the content of the statement of claim that the lawsuit is actually aimed at challenging the transaction (oral agreement of 2006), which is the subject of consideration in the framework of a dispute between the parties pending in the commercial unit of the British Virgin Islands Supreme Court of the East Caribbean Supreme Court (Case No.: BVIHC (COM) 2013 0160), which follows from the decision of the named court submitted with the objection to the private complaint, which was selected by the parties as competent and proceeded to the consideration of the case. At the same time, it is on the verbal agreement of 2006 that the parties present their objections in court.
Meanwhile, the current civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation does not provide for challenging evidence in one case (court of a foreign state) in a separate civil case, since this can only be done in the same case in which such evidence was examined by the court during direct consideration of the case or when appealing the relevant decision ...
Since Vekselberg V.F. claims are declared to be null and void of an agreement regarding the organization of a joint business in the electric power industry, which is the subject of consideration in another civil case, these requirements cannot be the subject of consideration in a separate proceeding, and therefore there are no grounds for accepting a statement of claim for court proceedings ...
O P R E D E L I L A:
The determination of the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow of February 11, 2019 is canceled.
Set a new definition in the case.
"To refuse to accept the claim of the Vekselberg VF to Abyzov MA on declaring the agreement null and void."
To be continued