Quantcast
Channel: Roman Abramovich
Viewing all 74 articles
Browse latest View live

Venice Is So Annoyed By Roman Abramovich's Superyacht, It's Thinking Of Instating An "Oligarch Tax"

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich Yacht

Roman Abramovich and his girlfriend Dasha Zhukova have managed to enrage the inhabitants of Venice by anchoring their enormous mega yacht in an otherwise scenic lagoon.

The Russian oligarch arrived for this week’s Venice Biennale art extravaganza in his 377-ft. Luna (above), the world’s largest expedition yacht that he purchased last year.

The ship has thrown a good portion of St. Mark’s Basin into shadow, angering locals no end. “The boats are getting too big and blocking the view,” Venice’s mayor, Giorgio Orsoni, complained to the press. “These yachts are showing up to see Venice for free, but St. Mark’s Basin is being turned into a motorway and we have to start limiting the traffic.”

He says he may institute a new tariff on oversized yachts which some wags have dubbed the “oligarch tax.”

The Luna, which Abramovich lent to Madonna last year and which he partied on at the recent Cannes Film Festival, features two helicopters, seven smaller boats, a 10-man submarine, a music studio, swimming pool, basketball court, bulletproof windows and a crew of 40. At least he didn’t bring the even bigger Eclipse on his art-buying jaunt – that would really have had the Venetians up in arms.

[Abramovich's Yacht in Venice on JamesList]

James Spotting is the official blog of JamesList.com, the world's smartest luxury marketplace with headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, offices in Marbella, Spain and representation in London, Frankfurt, Singapore and Miami. JamesList features more than 65,000 private jets, yachts, luxury cars, properties and exclusive watches for sale and rent from a trusted network of dealers around the world. James Spotting tracks the latest and coolest luxury news and trends from around the globe.

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


Roman Abramovich's Yacht Is "Far Too Big" To Dock On The French Riviera

$
0
0

abramovich-eclipse.jpg

Ah, the problems of the rich and famous.

Billionaire Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich has been told to park his massive yacht, the Eclipse, elsewhere by officials at the Antibes port on the French Riviera who said the boat would not fit on the so-called "Millionaires' Berth," according to the Daily Mail.

Abramovich reportedly sought to dock the Eclipse, which at 536 feet, is the world's largest yacht, on Monday.

According to the Daily Mail:

But the port authorities immediately said that they already had enough tycoons' boats moored up, and there was no possibility of them 'squeezing Eclipse in' because it was 'far too big'.

'Mr Abramovich has a villa in the town and is, of course, always welcome to disembark with his family, but with a yacht this size it was not possible,' said a source in the Riviera port.

'Instead Eclipse had to be sailed out to sea and left there.'

The $800 million boat has both an anti-missile defense system and an anti-paparazzi laser shield that can scan for nearby cameras, and then fire a beam of light at the photographer's lens to destroy the photos.

DON'T MISS: The 15 Most Expensive Yachts In The World >

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Meet The Russian Heiress Who Is Dating Billionaire Roman Abramovich

$
0
0

dasha zhukovaDasha Zhukova appears to have it all.

The gorgeous girlfriend of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich and the daughter of another prominent Russian oligarch, it would be easy for her sit back and enjoy all the riches life has handed her.

But Zhukova, 30, is not just another extraordinarily rich girl. She's an entrepreneur with an eye for fashion and art.

Her latest project, a fashion rag called Garage, is slated to hit newsstands next month (in time for Fashion Week) and has the art and editorial worlds abuzz.

One of three covers of the inaugural issue features a NSFW photo of a woman's privates tattooed with a Damien Hirst-designed butterfly, and the content is also provocative and strange. Readers of issue #1 will be treated to a veggie-themed fashion spread, for example.

The New York Times explains:

In a newsstand environment dominated by digital perfection, Garage stands out because it looks almost handmade. The type is an amalgam of fonts, set to appear randomly. Some pages are pure mystery, like a spread that shows a dress called “Lettuce by Alexander McQueen.” It appears to be made of romaine, a creation by Ms. Battaglia and the photographer Fulvio Bonavia. Also included is a Prada dress made of citrus and a Moncler coat of anchovies.

Of course, it's not all work and no play for Zhukova. She leads one of the most fabulous lives imaginable.

Zhukova is the daughter of wealthy Russian oligarch Alexander Radkin Zhukov, who was once arrested for arms trafficking. She grew up in Moscow, Houston and Los Angeles.

Source: The Guardian



She briefly studied homeopathy in London before launching a small fashion label with a buddy in 2006.

Source: Pravda



Zhukova met Roman Abramovich while she was dating a Russian tennis star. The two were officially linked in 2007, shortly after Abramovich divorced his wife.

Source: Pravda



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Roman Abramovich Couldn't Dock His Megayacht In The French Riviera Because A Saudi Prince Took His Spot

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich yacht

A Saudi sheikh left Roman Abramovich stranded at sea this week after taking the last megayacht berth at the so-called “Millionaire’s Quay” in Cap d’Antibes.

The Russian oligarch had wanted to moor his massive $800 million, 533-ft. yacht Eclipse, the world’s largest in private hands, at the famed dock but arrived to find the only available spot had just been snatched by Saudi Arabian royal Prince Aziz al Saud, the London Sun reports.

Adding insult to injury, Abramovich is a resident of the posh resort town having purchased the eye-popping Château La Croë there in 2001, spending a reported $150 million to renovate it.

Abramovich has long wanted to build his own jetty at the villa but local nabobs have turned him down. At a still impressive 265 ft. the Prince’s superyacht Kingdom is less than half as long as the Eclipse.

As a result, Abramovich had to park offshore and take a tender to his property. “We regrettably had to inform Mr. Abramovich’s people that we cannot accommodate his yacht,” a spokesman for the Antibes International Yacht Club told the paper. “The only space where it could fit is already taken, though there are plans to build another large berth in the coming years.” So just cool your jets, old boy.

James Spotting is the official blog of JamesList.com, the world's smartest luxury marketplace with headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, offices in Marbella, Spain and representation in London, Frankfurt, Singapore and Miami. JamesList features more than 65,000 private jets, yachts, luxury cars, properties and exclusive watches for sale and rent from a trusted network of dealers around the world. James Spotting tracks the latest and coolest luxury news and trends from around the globe.

Now Meet The Russian Heiress Who Is Dating Roman Abramovich >

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

WHEN OLIGARCHS ATTACK: Berezovsky Sues Abramovich For $5 Billion Over Blackmail

$
0
0

roman-abramovich-tbi.jpg

Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich is being sued by fellow billionaire and mentor Boris Berezovsky in London's High Court, reports The Telegraph.

Berezovsky is looking for damages of $5.56 billion in the trial, according to Bloomberg

Berezovsky alleges that Abramovich, one of Russia's richest men and owner of Chelsea football club, forced him to sell shares in an oil company, Sibneft, the two had owned together, by blackmailing him.

The trial is likely to have big political implications. Berezovsky was once known as "the Godfather of the Kremlin" due to his enormous power, but following his criticism of the Russian regime now lives in exile. Abramovich has since severed his ties with his mentor in order to avoid the Kremlin's wrath, reports The Australian.

The trial began today. Berezovsky's lawyer, Laurence Rabinowitz QC, said the following in the opening session (via The Telegraph):

"This is a case about two men who - and this is common ground - worked together to acquire an asset - that is Sibneft - that would make them wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most people,"

"In the process, we say, (they) became and remained good friends until, that is, Mr Berezovsky, who had adopted a high political profile in Russia, not least through his control of certain media outlets, fell out with those in power in the Kremlin and was forced to leave his home and create a new life abroad."

"He was in effect required to make a choice: to remain loyal to Mr Berezovsky, his friend and mentor and the person to whom he owed his newly acquired great fortune, or instead, as we submit, to betray Mr Berezovsky and to seek to profit from his difficulties."

"It is our case that Mr Abramovich at that point demonstrated that he was a man to whom wealth and influence mattered more than friendship and loyalty and this has led him, finally, to go so far as to even deny that he and Mr Berezovsky were actually ever friends."

Abramovich has already had a motion to throw out the case denied.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Oleg Deripaska Starts His High Court Trial

$
0
0

oleg deripaska

In the long history of English justice, it has happened before that candidates for the seats of the highest court in land have been obliged to rehearse their talents and qualifications before the monarch on his throne (aka the Crown).

And not only their qualifications, technical and professional, but also their willingness to do the monarch’s bidding.

If not for that, Crown courtiers have been known to intimate, the seat on offer might be pulled and presented to another arse.

In time of invasion threats, wars of religion, wars between king and barons, civil war between king and parliament, and conflicts between the lower house of parliament and upper, ambitious Englishmen who hoped to be high judges understood how to comport themselves in front of those more powerful than them, and on whom they depended.

In the evolution of the American democracy, this process has been formalized as the nomination hearing process of judges named by the President before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In London at the moment, an unusual – possibly unprecedented – test of a judge’s appointment is under way in court chamber No. 26 on The Strand. Starting on October 1, Jonathan Sumption, Queens Counsel and reported appointee to a judgeship of the Supreme Court, the highest court of appeal in the land, is lead counsel and barrister for Roman Abramovich, the defendant charged by plaintiff Boris Berezovsky with cheating him of several hundred million dollars worth of benefits that were, Berezovsky alleges in his testimony, part of a trust under English law.

In comparative historical terms, Abramovich and Berezovsky might be regarded as warlords at a stage of Russian history when the crown was worn by a man about as arbitrary, murderous and untrustworthy as King John I of England, who lived 800 years before Boris Yeltsin. In the earlier event, on June 15, 1215, King John was forced to sign a charter demanded by the warlords.

As one of the illustrations implies, the king agreed to sign because he was surrounded by armed and armored men; and not because, as the second illustration implies, he was being gracious to a bunch of bare-headed supplicants. In fact, the king knew it would have been dangerous for him not to sign. In Berezovsky’s case, he is claiming it was dangerous for him to sign, and dangerous too, if he refused to agree. His oral trust with Abramovich was the result. For Abramovich, Sumption is trying in court to show that because there was no Berezovsky signature on the agreement, there was no trust.

Sumption, it has also been reported in London, has been given leave to appear as fee-paying attorney for Abramovich, before he takes the proposed seat on the Supreme Court. Sumption appears to have confirmed his judgeship with this statement to the BBC. But he’s keeping mum on the terms of his deferment. Here’s the Law Gazette version, and here, the Lawyer.

The schedule for Berezovsky v Abramovich anticipates open-court proceedings for at least three months. Sumption, it has been reported while he himself remains silent, has asked for his judgeship to be postponed until Berezovsky v Abramovich is concluded. That might be double the duration of the trial, possibly longer.

The legal commentary has been that this puts the High Court judge, Justice Dame Elizabeth Gloster, in the awkward position of ruling in relation to Sumption’s moves with the understanding that he may be looking down at her from his higher appeals bench sometime soon. There has also been speculation that Sumption appears to be placing his desire for Abramovich’s money above his desire to serve his name, profession and the cause of justice in England.

That indeed is something, something secret. So when the moment came last, during proceedings on October 13, that Sumption tried leading the witness with his display of the fundamentals of English law – he was cross-examining Berezovsky – he was slapped down by the judge. As observers in the courtroom remember the significant instant, Sumption was interrogating Berezovsky on how it could possibly be that so much of monetary value and wealth management could depend on the word of a couple of Russians – Berezovsky and Abramovich – without their writing everything important down and signing it.

Berezovsky replied that this was how relationships between Russians who trusted each other have been evolving towards trusts as they operate in English law. Sumption then asked Berezovsky how he understood the concept of an English trust. Berezovsky replied that in the year 2000 he had been advised by his partner, the late Badri Patarkatsishvili and also by another Russian business acquaintance, Vasily Anisimov, the owner of aluminium smelters at the time, that the Russian concept of trust was unenforceable in Russian law, but was in transition toward the English one, the better to protect the interests of the agreeing parties.

Berezovsky said that Russian business agreements could be struck by a handshake. Sumption asked whether Berezovsky understood that English trusts required written documents and signatures.

At that point, Justice Gloster intervened to say that in the law on trusts, English trusts could be formed by oral agreement. Sumption slipped away from the rebuke to continue interrogating Berezovsky with the innuendo that he knew, as the court should judge, that the written record was the only credible record of what Berezovsky had actually agreed with Abramovich. Berezovsky told Sumption he failed to understand why Sumption couldn’t grasp the point – that there are occasions when agreements are simply too dangerous for the interersts of the parties to be put down in writing.

It isn’t known what form of agreement – written down or oral, formal or informal – has been governing Sumption’s appearance on Abramovich’s side until or unless he becomes a Supreme Court justice, accepts the knighthood that usually goes with the seat, the robes, and the extra large wig, etc.

But one thing is now clear from the Russians and from the Englishmen performing in Courtroom No. 26 – the concepts of trust, credibility, obligation and enforcement are a matter on which Russian culture and English culture may not be agreement, at least not on the surface. Sumption had made a bad mistake in law, as he attempted to make Berezovsky look a liar. That much the judge made immediately and politely obvious.

But just as importantly – the judge signalled the problem for the entire proceedings: how can Sumption and his client Abramovich make Berezovsky’s trust arrangement with Abramovich be judged to be lacking in evidence, and thereby unenforceable, if Sumption himself is relaying on a secret trust arrangement promising big money for what he is currently doing, and protecting his next paying job?

One other important Russian peculiarity has also emerged from the trial so far, and that concerns the believability of Oleg Deripaska, chief executive of United Company Rusal and purported controlling shareholder of Rusal (with a stake of 47.41%, according to the Rusal website). The Berezovsky case is the first of the High Court trials of how Deripaska came to own, or claim to own and control Rusal, Russia’s aluminium monopoly, worth $14 billion in current share market capitalization. Two other trials follow in the High Court shortly.

In January of 2012, immediately after the courtroom proceedings are scheduled to wind up for Berezovsky v Abramovich, Deripaska will go on trial in the High Court for the second time. This is in the case of The Honourable Nathaniel Philip Victor James Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Limited. According to the papers filed by Rothschild (and Deripaska’s) London lawfirm Schillings, Rothschild claims to have been libeled and his reputation damaged by two accounts of his meetings in Moscow with Deripaska, as reported by the Daily Mail of London on May 22, 2010. Here is the story as the newspaper continues to report it.

Of primary interest to the British reporters in this story was the fact, claimed in the publication and apparently not contested, that Rothschild had airlifted Lord Peter Mandelson from Switzerland to Moscow in his private jet in time to attend a January 2005 dinner meeting which Deripaska was hosting.

That banquet, across the street from the Russian Foreign Ministry, was for senior executives of US aluminium-maker Alcoa, plus Peter Munk, the Canadian goldmining magnate and advisor to both Rusal and Rothschild. So swiftly was the airlift undertaken, according to the newspaper Mandelson didn’t have time to get a Russian entry visa into his passport; that, reportedly, was arranged at the airport by Rusal’s security men.

When they published their story, the Daily Mail reporters believed that the dinner conversation between Deripaska and Alcoa’s chief executive at the time, Alain Belda, plus Rothschild and Mandelson, was focused on the closing of Alcoa’s purchase of two Rusal-owned aluminium sheet-rolling mills in Samara and Rostov regions. The Daily Mail asks: “Why then was Mandelson there at all?”

Until Rothschild and Schillings stand up in court in a few weeks’ time, it isn’t clear from the publicly available documents what exactly Rothschild is complaining about, since the innuendo – if there is one in the publication – is that it was Mandelson, then Trade Commissioner of the European Commission, who may have had a conflict of interest regarding tariffs then in force, later to be dropped, for rolled aluminium products exported from Russia to the European Union (EU). The Commission is denying that, claiming the tariff decision was transparent and undertaken independently of Mandelson.

Since the Rothschild claim was first filed in July of 2010, new evidence has appeared, suggesting that Deripaska and Belda may have had much bigger fish to fry at dinner than rolled aluminium exports to the EU. According to US State Department records, Deripaska approached Alcoa early in 2006 – the State Department estimate of timing – with a proposal for Alcoa to acquire control of Rusal through a shareholding swap and merger.

There is other evidence that Alcoa had been seeking to buy control of several Russian aluminium smelters, including Bratsk, the biggest of Rusal’s smelters, at least six years earlier, before the Abramovich deal to which Berezovsky refers, and before it was incorporated into Rusal. That move, confirmed by Alcoa sources years ago, was blocked by opposition from a group of Russians controlling Bratsk and the Russian aluminium trade. Alcoa, company sources have also suggested, didn’t give up on the much bigger aluminium opportunities in Russia than the ones it bought from Rusal in 2005.

The risk to Rothschild, and also to Deripaska, in the High Court trial next January is that a full account will be sought from witnesses of what Rothschild and Mandelson heard Deripaska say at the Moscow dinner; where the two Englishmen went in Russia after dinner; and what Mandelson, Rothschild, Deripaska, and Belda did in the aftermath of the trip.

While the judge is considering that evidence, a third trial in the High Court is scheduled to get under way. That is Michael Cherney v Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska. This is the lawsuit by Cherney (Mikhail Chernoy) to enforce signed trust and contract agreements with Deripaska, which date back to March of 2001, when Cherney’s shareholding in the Rusal business was the deciding factor for control of Rusal between competing bids from Abramovich and his partners (Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili), Victor Vekselberg, Vasily Anisimov, and at a further remove, Alcoa.

Cherney’s evidence in this case is that he put Deripaska, a junior manager he trusted, in charge of Cherney’s expanding interests in the Russian aluminium business; and that Deripaska repaid that trust by cheating Cherney of the latter’s stake in Sibirsky Aluminy, one of the forming companies of Rusal. Deripaska used to claim that he had no business dealings or shareholding partnership with Cherney, and that the only money he had paid was protection money. Noone on several UK court benches appears to believe that, and the documentary evidence belies it.

The sequence of these three High Court actions make, however, one piece of the same business history. Commencing with Berezovsky’s testimony in court last week, they reveal that contrary to Deripaska’s public claims, and the testimony of his counsel in the Cherney proceedings so far, Deripaska wasn’t a significant participant, let alone the prime mover in the creation of the Rusal enterprise.

Others were more important as proprietors of the assets, and more powerful in terms of guarding the asset consolidation politically from government opposition, led (Berezovsky has testified) by Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov; he took power after the August 1998 Kremlin bond default, and was deposed by Yeltsin in May of 1999.

According to Berezovsky’s evidence under cross-examination by Sumption, he and Patarkatsishvili were first approached in 1999 with a proposal to acquire several Russian aluminium assets, including the Krasnoyarsk smelter, the Bratsk smelter, the Krasnoyarsk hydro-electric power plant (on which the Krasnoyarsk smelter depended for its energy), and the Achinsk alumina refinery, which supplied part of the alumina which the smelters converted into metal.

At the same time, there were many powerful Russian businessmen competing for the same assets, Berezovsky has testified, including Anisimov and Mikhail Fridman’s Alfa group (which had lost out in an earlier round of battling for the Achinsk plant). But not any of the names mentioned include Deripaska’s. What happened next, after the deal initiation, according to Berezovsky, was that he approached Abramovich, who referred the deal idea to his advisors – they are named in court as Eugene Shvidler and Eugene Tenenbaum. Again, there is no mention – this too appears to be common ground between Abramovich’s evidence and Bereozovsky’s — that Abramovich asked Deripaska for advice or participation in the deal sequence.

The Berezovsky claim is that Abramovich and he agreed that he and Patarkatsishvili would acquire a 50% stake in the four Siberian assets for $581 million — the court testimony diverges on price in the range of $400 million to $575 million – which would be covered by Berezovsky’s and Patarkatsishvili’s share of oil sale profits from Sibneft. They then intended to flip the assets, when Abramovich resold (merged) them into the newly formed holding called Rusal, for which Abramovich’s idea was that Deripaska would pay.

In retrospect, though not yet referred to in the High Court, Abramovich got Deripaska to pay him $1.8 billion (out of Rusal revenues) for the assets Berezovsky says he and Abramovich had agreed would cost less than $600 million to acquire. Abramovich was tripling his money, it seems. But nowhere in the court testimony so far is Deripaska identified as anything but Abramovich’s factotum.

Sumption’s case against Berezovsky’s claim is that Berezovsky wasn’t an equity stakeholder in the deal at start or finish, and that monies paid to him and to Patarkatsishvili were deal commissions or success and completion fees, not equity dividends or shareholding profit shares. Sumption is admitting for Abramovich that Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili played a successful role of sorts. But striking by its absence in the evidence presented so far is the self-important role Deripaska claims against Cherney, and will claim in his own defence in court later on.

Berezovsky mentions the name of Dmitry Bosov as initiating one of the ideas for consolidating the Russian aluminium business under a single group’s ownership; Anisimov as making a similar proposal; Patarkatsishvili as the negotiator of the principles of the deal; Abramovich as the source of the money from Sibneft’s cashflow; and Eugene Shvidler, Abramovich’s partner in Sibneft, as his deal advisor.

Again according to Berezovsky, it was agreed with Abramovich, Shvidler, Patarkatsishvili and himself at a meeting at the Dorchester Hotel in London on March 13, 2000, that Rusal would be comprised of Abramovich’s stake, including 25% for himself (and Shvidler) and 25% for Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili; and 50% comprising assets held by Deripaska and his partners.

The latter Berezovsky identifies as led by Mikhail Chernoy. In an aside during his court testimony, Berezovsky testified that he found it remarkable that Lev Chernoy was on the selling side at the start of the transaction sequence, while Mikhail Chernoy, his brother, on the buying side at the conclusion of the sequence. Deripaska’s significance appears to have been squeezed between the two Chernoys.

According to Berezovsky, Deripaska’s role was to manage the new Rusal holding, and take orders from everyone else, starting with Abramovich. The details of this arrangement with Abramovich were said by Sumption as having been nutted out in negotiations between a group of Abramovich aides led by Tenenbaum, an accountant from Toronto who founded the KPMG office in Moscow in the early 1990s and then left to work for Abramovich. Representing Deripaska were three men, according to Sumption – Alexander Bulygin, chief executive of Sibirsky Aluminy; Stalbeck Mishakov, a personal lawyer for Deripaska; and Paul Hauser, another personal lawyer for Deripaska.

Hauser was the principal solicitor involved in settling a 2005 claim against Deripaska from aluminium traders, David and Simon Reuben; they charged that Deripaska had cheated them by switching aluminium sales revenues from their intended companies into shadow companies with the same names and different registrations. The claim for $300 million was settled out of court and paid by Deripaska.

Bulygin reappears at the Moscow dinner in January of 2005, when the Daily Mail claims Rothschild showed up with Mandelson in tow. But Bulygin was never more than Deripaska’s factotum. Since his dismissal in January of 2009 and replacement by Deripaska himself, Bulygin has disappeared from view. But not before he went on record as acknowledging that when his company thought better of the contracts it had signed, he tore it up.

That is what the Reuben brothers and several others with profit-sharing, equity and trading contracts with Deripaska and his companies have gone to court to enforce. It is what Berezovsky is accusing Abramovich of doing in 2000, and Cherney is accusing Deripaska of doing in 2001 and the years which followed. What Belda might have to admit that Deripaska proposed to Alcoa in 2005 and 2006 may surface shortly. Over the past decade, this game of lifting assets from one owner and reselling to another, the asset value has jumped by 35 times.

How much Abramovich knew or planned of the eventual plan to swap Russian aluminium stakes at risk of Kremlin re-nationalization for US-listed Alcoa shares, may become clearer in Courtroom No. 26 before Christmas. But it is already clear that in that grand scheme, Deripaska was playing second or third string. Rothschild apparently thought he needed help to convince Alcoa otherwise.

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Berezovsky At Times “Something Of A Megalomaniac”, Says Abramovich

$
0
0

Abramovich

THE LEGAL BATTLE between Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich and his former friend, Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky, rages on.

Berzovsky is suing Abramovich in a London court for several billion dollars, saying that the Chelsea Football Club boss had intimidated him into selling shares in their jointly owned oil company Sibneft at a fraction of their value.

But yesterday afternoon, Abramovich dismissed that claim as nonsense as he took the stand at London’s Commercial Court.

The Guardian reports that Abramovich spoke no words other than to say ‘Da’ in reply to all the questions he was asked by Berezovsky’s QC, Laurence Rabinowitz.

However, a written witness statement from him was read out in court.

In the statement, Abramovich told the court that he had never made a “legal, binding agreement” with Berezovsky over Sibneft, a Russian oil and gas conglomerate.

He also said Berezovsky “has already obtained a very substantial sum of money from me and I do not believe that he has any entitlement to be paid anything more, whether in law or honour.”

“There was at times something of a megalomaniac about him that could lead to fantastic suggestions on his part,” Abramovich said, citing one idea to restore monarchy in Russia.

Berezovsky, who amassed a fortune during Russia’s privatization of state assets in the early 1990s, has testified that during the chaotic years after the breakup of the Soviet Union he was a mentor to Abramovich and treated him like a son.

Together with a third partner they set up Sibneft.

But Berezovsky, an ally of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, fell out with Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin, shortly after he became president in 2000.

Berezovsky fled to Britain, which granted him political asylum, and has since become a fierce critic of the Kremlin.

Abramovich sold Sibneft to Russia’s state-owned gas monopoly Gazprom in a multibillion-dollar deal in 2005. He said of Berezovsky (65): “I was not his protege and he was not my mentor.”

Abramovich used the Russian word “krysha,” or roof, to describe their relationship.

“A person giving krysha to another was a person who acted as a protector,” Abramovich said in his witness statement. “I had to pay Mr Berezovsky for the opportunity of creating the oil company under his protection.”

Abramovich’s lawyer has said that between 1995 and 2002, the younger man paid Berezovsky $2 billion for his patronage, including money for homes in France, private planes, art works and jewelry.

Abramovich’s statement read:

At times it was difficult to meet Mr Berezovsky’s demands and I thought they were often excessive. However I was concerned about what might happen if we lost the krysha.

If Mr Berezovsky needed to charter a plane in order to fly somewhere, or wanted a yacht to be chartered, he would ask me to pay for it.

The two men met in 1994 on a yacht in the Carribean

The case is expected to last for two months.

This post originally appeared at TheJournal.ie

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Roman Abramovich's London Testimony Shows How Crazy Business Was In Russia's 'Wild East' Of The Nineties

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich

The court case between oligarches Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich is worth watching for a number of reasons.

Firstly, at $6.5 billion, the lawsuit is the biggest personal suit in history. Secondly, despite concerning events that took palce over ten years ago in Russia, the case is being held in London.

Thirdly, the court case has forced the normally private Roman Abramovich to talk about his rise to power in 1990s Russia, a place where the normal rules broke down and a free for all power grab emerged in its place.

We've taken a few key passages from Ambramovich's witness statement that show his rise to power. Head over to the Guardian to check out the other side of the story in Berezovsky's statement.

Humble Beginnings

"I am a Russian citizen, residing in Russia. I was born in Saratov in the former USSR, as it then was. I lost both parents at at a young age and was brought up by relatives, initially in the Komi Republic and then later in Moscow. I consider Moscow as my motherland."



An Education Halted By Military Service

"After graduating from high school, I was admitted to the Industrial Institute of Ukhta in the city of Ukhta. During my studies there, I was drafted into the army and returned to school upon discharge; however, I never graduated and went into business in 1987."



The Beginnings Of An Empire

"My business career began in 1987, when I was employed as a mechanic in the construction office No. 122 of Mosspetmonstazh. It was at the time that the Soviet government under Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev announced the start of "perestroika", allowing for the establishment of small businesses known as "Co-operatives"."

"I was one of the country's early entrepreneurs, serving from 1989 through 1991 as chairman of the cooperative "Uyat [Comford]", which specialized in the manufacture of plastic toys for children."

[...]

"I then moved into trading, establishing a series of companies dealing in the purchase, sale, logistics, transportation and export of oil, petroleum products, mineral fertilisers and cement."



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.


It Was Totally Normal To Give Someone Millions Of Dollars Of Cash In A Bag During The Nineties In Russia

$
0
0

roman abramovich 1

Another revealing detail has come in the ongoing court case between Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky comes today from The Guardian.

Abramovich has already explained how he was paying Berezovsky for his political services as his "Krysha" — Berezovsky denies this of course, saying the money was profits from his share of Abramovich's companies.

So, how was that cash delivered?

According to Abramovich, much of the money was sent over in bags of cash of amounts up to $5 million.

Totally normal behavior in the 'Wild East' it seems >

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian Billionaire Doesn't Know How — Or If — Russia Taxes His Income

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich

One of Russia’s richest men, and by some accounts one of the cleverest, claims he has no idea whether the principal source of his income is taxed.

The admission came just a few minutes after three in the afternoon in London last Friday.

Roman Abramovich may have been tired, having been on the witness stand in the High Court since 10 that morning, and for the fifth gruelling day in row.

At the time, he was being cross-examined by Laurence Rabinowitz, barrister for Boris Berezovsky.

The focus of the questioning was the evidence of a conversation Abramovich had had with Berezovsky and his partner, Badri Patarkatsishvili at Le Bourget airport, near Paris, on December 6, 2000. Unknown to Abramovich, the meeting was taped clandestinely, and the transcript is now part of the evidence before the court.

Berezovsky is claiming that Abramovich demonstrated on the record that he accepted that Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili were his shareholding partners in the ownership of the Sibneft oil company and of Russian aluminium plants which were incorporated that year as Rusal.

More than $900 million in cash was under discussion at the airport meeting. Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili wanted a down-payment of $300 million because they were on the run.

According to Abramovich, he was agreeable to paying Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili the money they were asking for. They called the money dividends, the tape recording reveals. But Abramovich now denies this, claiming instead that Patarkitsishvili had trouble with technical terminology, and whenever he said dividends, he meant protection (“krysha”) payments.

Abramovich is recorded as explaining that if their shareholdings in Sibneft were to be made formal, even through a chain of offshore holding companies and secret nomniees, there was a grave risk that the evidence would slip out, and that Sibneft would be “destroyed”.

In other words, Abramovich was admitting, Berezovsky’s public falling-out with President Vladimir Putin had not only forced him to leave Russia in a hurry, his assets frozen behind him; but that his influence with the Kremlin to protect anyone, even himself, had come to an abrupt end. Abramovich, he appears to have said in the airport conversation and repeated again in court last week, was concerned with the legalities, declared and discoverable, of Sibneft’s cash going to both himself and to the two others.

According to Abramovich’s testimony in court, what the trio had been discussing was “the legalisation of money — how to make sure that one can legally receive the money.”

What protection Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili were providing in December 2000, or could earn for their $300 million payment , if they were in such desperate straits, is a matter for the judge, Justice Dame Elizabeth Gloster, to rule on in several months’ time.

But for an instant the judge attempted to test Abramovich’s knowledge of something much simpler. So she asked Abramovich how he understood the payment of Russian corporation dividends was taxed by the Russian tax authority. Is there a withholding tax, asked Justice Gloster, according to which the company issuing dividends deducts a portion of the money for payment in tax before the shareholder eligible to receive the dividend gets it? What happens when the dividend recipient is resident abroad?

Abramovich responded swiftly and without ambiguity. He could have said that the dividend tax regime of Russia has taken time to evolve towards the global norm, and that his business operations are so complex, he relies on his accountants to advise what tax regime applies in Russia.

He could have said that when he was governor of Chukotka, he arranged for special corporate tax exemptions and benefits to be granted to companies registered or trading through the Chukotka capital, Anadyr, especially his own companies until the Accounting Chamber ruled that this was illegal in 2004. Also, he could have said that his dividend income is always paid according to Russian tax law.

But he didn’t. Instead, Abramovich told the judge: “I’m sorry, unfortunately I cannot answer your question.” And his reason on oath? “I simply do not know.”

In fact, Russian corporations withhold tax payable on dividends for shareholders, like the practice everywhere else. And according to the Russian tax code, the tax rate varies from 9% for Russian tax residents to 15% payable between Russian companies and foreign resident companies; 30% if the dividend recipients are foreign resident individuals, not companies. This is how LUKoil explains to its shareholders how their dividends will be taxed at the withholding stage.

What the tape-recording reveals is that Abramovich was intent on persuading Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili that whatever record they would make to legalize the payments between them wouldn’t protect them from trouble with the Kremlin for all of them. So Abramovich’s proposal was that they should trust him to do the right thing. Abramovich was offering to play the krysha, not the other way round. “Bor’, come on,” Abramovich is heard as saying. “I don’t have enough of a feel for the situation to be able to tell you whether this is good or bad. An agreement from me — that’s the easiest thing. You get it, don’t you?”

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Roman Abramovich Confuses Screwing Oleg Deripaska With Making Love To Oleg Deripaska

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich

An unusual moment occurred on Wednesday this week in Roman Abramovich’s testimony in the UK High Court when he refers to the seigneurial right – that historically doubtful power a feudal lord claimed for first sex with young virgins on his estates, who were, by feudal law, his property.

Abramovich says: “Well, it’s the thing which is called the right of the first night”. In the Russian and the English, Abramovich is referring to the Latin jus primae noctis – properly translated, that’s the law of the first night. The feudal law textbooks claim the rape could be bought off if the girl gave the lord part or all of her dowry. Either way, she would become used property and unmarriageable.

For sex suddenly appear to appear in court during hours of questioning about how it happened that Abramovich came to sell his shareholding in Rusal, the Russian aluminium concern, to Oleg Deripaska (left image) for $2.03 billion was unusual. That’s because Abramovich (right image) made his response in answer to questioning about a right of an altogether different kind.

He was being asked by Laurence Rabinowitz, advocate for Boris Berezovsky, if Abramovich understood the right of first refusal in a contract of sale and purchase he had signed on September 17, 2003, with Deripaska. According to the evidence in court, Abramovich was asking $2 billion for his shareholding, but accepted that Deripaska didn’t have the cash to pay all at once.

Abramovich also testified that despite the enormous sums of money he was taking out of Rusal each year, he wanted to sell out because there was serious conflict in the management of the Rusal operations and plants. Abramovich acknowledged that he had trouble remembering how much his cut-out company, Madison, received from Rusal, but agreed with papers presented to him showing he and Madison took $425 million out of Rusal in 2001; $417 million in 2002; and $529 million in 2003. When asked to confirm, Abramovich replied: “Well, I don’t know. I think so, yes.”

In the summer of 2003, however, the cash-cow was ready for disposal, because, Abramovich told the court, “we agreed with Mr Deripaska that we’ll finish our relationship because the relationship between our managing teams were very stressed, we knew it wouldn’t lead to anything good and that would put an end to our joint business.”

Rabinowitz then cross-examined Abramovich on clause 2 in the sale contract. Abramovich is asked if he and Deripaska had agreed to sequence the sale into two tranches, one of 25% and another of 25%; and if the deal contract gave Deripaska the option to match a third-party bid for the second 25%. That, explained the lawyer, “applies if you have received an offer from someone else. At that point, Mr Deripaska can say to you, ‘I want to buy, not that third party. Give me the right to buy’. Do you understand what I am saying?”

At that instant, an unfashionable form of sexual intercourse with unwilling partners flashed into Abramovich’s head. Out popped a remark, which will have the historians of Russia psycho-analyzing for years.

Abramovich then went on to claim the famous “I know what I know” defence against the failure to read. He testified that he knew what he and Deripaska had agreed, but: “I haven’t read this contract so I do not know. I can explain to you what we’ve agreed.”

There is no reference by Abramovich to having sex with Deripaska. Or with anybody. The moment when the most powerful, wealthy and ingratiating businessman in Russia confuses an option and a fuck has passed.

The court testimony reveals there had been a great deal of screwing around. Abramovich was shown a statement Deripaska has signed for the Cherney trial to come. In that evidence, Deripaska says that in the summer of 2003, he had told Abramovich he wanted to buy the full 50% shareholding in Rusal from Abramovich, and was told that wasn’t possible because “I [Deripaska] was told [by Abramovich] that only 25 percent was available”. Abramovich’s pre-trial deposition was read out to him in which he said: “I believe Mr Deripaska did not have sufficient cash to pay for the entire purchase in full.”

“Mr Deripaska always tells the truth”, Abramovich went to say from the witness box, adding his denial that the real reason he told Deripaska he couldn’t sell him the second 25% was because Berezovsky and Badri Patarkatsishvili owned it, and had to give their consent to sell.

Abramovich does not explain in his court testimony why he priced the two equal-sized stakes in Rusal at $1.58 billion and $450 million respectively, except to claim that included in the deal Abramovich was also selling Deripaska his share in Irkutskenergo, an electricity generating company supplying power to Irkutsk-region aluminium smelters; and Ruspromavto, a holding of car-manufacturing assets, which Abramovich described as “a hobby for Oleg”. In the documents presented in court, the minor assets went into the first-stage deal, signed on September 17, 2003. The second stage, with the remaining 25% of Rusal, was supposed to be completed one year later, in 2004.

The buy-sell parties to this deal were named in court as Madison Equities Corporation for Abramovich; and Baufinanz Limited for Deripaska. But the documents also reveal that Deripaska had structured shareholding control of Rusal between several companies — Rusal Holding, Dilcor, David Worldwide, Valeford, Kadex, Slivenski, and Galinton.

Rabinowitz asked Abramovich if the purpose of this elaborate structure, and the papers he had signed with Deripaska in September of 2003, was “that the net result of the arrangements that you and Mr Deripaska made was that control of these companies, and through them Rusal, would have passed to Mr Deripaska on 30 September 2003?”

Abramovich replied: “I accept that the control of Rusal would have passed toMr Deripaska.” He and Berezovsky’s advocate went on to disagree over how control differed from ownership.

What hasn’t passed is the risk for Deripaska, who claims he owns the 47.41% Rusal officially says he holds in the company through the EN+ holding.

For Abramovich’s testimony has exposed that at least 25%, and more likely 50% of the shareholding capital of Rusal, formed in 2001, had owners other than Abramovich and Deripaska themselves; these other stakeholders are the partners referred to in taped conversations, memoranda of record, and contracts.

Berezovsky is claiming in the current High Court proceeding that his shareholding in Rusal is owed to him by Abramovich. Whether his parallel claim in the same proceeding that Abramovich also owes him a stake in the oil company Sibneft, now Gazpromneft, will be decided separately by the presiding judge, Justice Dame Elizabeth Gloster. She may make a split decision, rejecting the Sibneft claim, and awarding the Rusal one. At one point in Wednesday’s testimony by Abramovich, she interrupted him to ask him directly: “Just a second. The point that’s being put to you is that if, as you said, you had an agreement right from the start with Deripaska that he would buy from you the second tranche of 25 per cent for 450, why wasn’t that put into a binding written agreement at the same time as the agreement for the first stage?”

Abramovich reieterated that Deripaska didn’t have enough cash. He then added for the judge: “He didn’t want to put obligations into this contract because it wasn’t clear that he would find the money.”

Whatever will be decided on Berezovsky’s claims against Abramovich, Deripaska’s legal right to hold the shares he claims is on trial now. The first and largest claimant against him is Mikhail Chernoy (Michael Cherney); he is asking the High Court to confirm and enforce signed agreements with Deripaska from March 2001 – two years before the Abramovich-Deripaska contracts of 2003 — entitling Cherney to at least 13% of Rusal, plus dividends, asset sale proceeds, and costs, the sum of which is about $6 billion. The trial of Cherney v Deripaska commences in the High Court in sixteen weeks’ time.

But in no time at all, on November 18, Deripaska is scheduled to go into the London witness box for questioning by lawyers for Abramovich, who have called him to testify. Those holding Deripaska promissory notes and trust undertakings to portions of his shares in Rusal and other companies, not to mention intelligence and police agents of several nationalities, are also likely to be following the proceedings with great attention to detail.

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Oligarch Berezovsky Denies Sending Threatening SMS Signed 'Dr. Evil'

$
0
0

boris berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky has denied claims that he sent a threatening text message to a former employee, reports the BBC.

The claims came during Berezvosky's ongoing (and fascinating) legal battle against fellow oligarch Roman Abramovich over huge profits gained in the "Wild East" of post-Soviet Russia.

Abramovich associate and Chelsea football-club director Eugene Tenenbaum told the court about the (comically) threatening text message:

"It said that, 'I know you're helping them. I'm watching you. I'm listening to your phone calls. I'm controlling your Skype'.

"And I think he referred to Dr Evil - 'I'm Dr Evil', something to that effect."

The court case between Berezvosky and Abramovich is said to be the biggest personal lawsuit in history.

Read more at the BBC >

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Lavish New Year's Party Aboard Russian Billionaire's Megayacht To Rival Any In The World

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich yacht Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, known for his lavish New Year’s parties, is set to make this season a memorable one with a billionaire’s ball aboard his 557-ft. Eclipse, the world’s largest private yacht. He has invited 300 guests to help celebrate aboard the massive vessel, which will be anchored off his $89 million estate in posh St. Bart’s, the London Daily Mail reports.

Rumors have surfaced that Abramovich has hired the Red Hot Chili Peppers to entertain his guests aboard the yacht, which features a military-grade missile defense system, armor plating, bulletproof windows, three helipads, two swimming pools, a wellness center and a “paparazzi proof” electronic anti-photo shield.

Abramovich was spotted aboard the"gigayacht" in St. Bart’s on Christmas Day and later ventured into town with gorgeous girlfriend Dasha Zhukova to mix with the locals, where he helped to light a giant menorah.

The Eclipse, built by Germany’s Blohm + Voss with luxe accommodations for 30 guests and 75 crew members, cost nearly $800 million to build, but thanks to an airtight contract signed long in advance the canny billionaire only paid about $500 million for it.

This post originally appeared on JamesList.

James Spotting is the official blog of JamesList.com, the world's smartest luxury marketplace with headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, offices in Marbella, Spain and representation in London, Frankfurt, Singapore and Miami. JamesList features more than 65,000 private jets, yachts, luxury cars, properties and exclusive watches for sale and rent from a trusted network of dealers around the world. James Spotting tracks the latest and coolest luxury news and trends from around the globe.

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

BILLIONAIRE WARS: A Russian Oligarch Dove Between The Legs Of A Bodyguard To Deliver A Lawsuit To Another Russian Oligarch

$
0
0

Roman Abramovich

The disputes playing out in London courts increasingly feature tough guys with private jets who deploy armies of attorneys to fight over obscene piles of cash. What they lack, however, is British plaintiffs or defendants.

London has become the battleground of choice for big business disputes emerging from Russia and countries that once belonged to the Soviet Union, a group known as the Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS. 

As these countries’ economies grow and globalize, post-Soviet businessmen increasingly shun local judicial systems, which often lack experience and are riddled with corruption.

Instead, they take their disputes to international courtrooms and arbitral tribunals.

Many of the legal narratives from this newfangled world of offshore lawyering read like the scripts for gangster movies.

Read more: Why is Russia prosecuting a dead man?

For instance, self-exiled millionaire Boris Berezovsky reportedly wedged himself through the legs of an special forces-trained bodyguard at the Hermes store on London's posh Sloane Street, to serve oligarch Roman Abramovich a court writ informing him of a $6 billion lawsuit.

“I’ve got a present for you,” Berezovsky declared as he handed Abramovich the suit, the most expensive to ever be tried in Britain, according to the Daily Mail. 

In another case, Kazakhstan-based BTA bank has been litigating with former chairman Mukhtar Ablyazov, for allegedly embezzling nearly $5 billion from the now-nationalized financial institution. The case involves nine lawsuits and more than 50 lawyers, the largest number to ever work on a case in British legal history, experts say.

Ablyazov, who fled to London in 2009, was found guilty Thursday of failing to disclose more than $50 million worth of assets, including posh properties in London and Moscow and 600 shell companies, after being ordered by the court to do so.

Ablyazov, who faces 22 months in jail, did not attend the hearing Thursday, sparking rumors that he fled England. Ablyazov’s brother-in-law, also involved in the case, has already been sentenced to 18 months in prison on similar charges. His location remains unknown. 

Read more: Can anyone defeat Putin in the upcoming election?

Separately, Uzbekistan-born Israeli businessman Mikhail Cherney is scheduled to meet in court this April with Russia’s "aluminum king" Oleg Deripaska. The $4 billion suit charges that Deripaska cheated Cherney out of his shares in Rusal, the world’s biggest aluminum producer.

In an odd twist, Cherney will give his testimony by video: he is wanted by Interpol for money laundering and organized crime.

More than half of cases in the British High Court commercial division, where a number of this type of cases are fought, involve clients from Russia and elsewhere in the CIS, according to several expert estimates.

A third of all cases at the London Court of International Arbitration, which gets the majority of business disputes because of its speed and confidentiality, involve a Russian-speaking party.

The International Commercial Court also gets its fair share.

The scuttlebutt among London lawyers says that the Kremlin has encouraged litigants to stop fighting their battles in the UK, concerned about how the sheer volume of high-profile litigation in English courts reflects on Russia.

The Kremlin denied any knowledge of such efforts. “It’s not so great that they are suing each other, but everyone is free to decide where to litigate,” a Kremlin spokesperson said. The Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal has long been a popular venue for CIS cases, but London has now taken the lead.

Many post-Soviet executives have bought residences in London, have become involved in local commerce or moved their families there. And CIS companies are often listed on the London Stock Exchange. The bulk of the CIS cases come from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, lawyers said.

The big bucks

“The cases are always interesting — great characters, and often dramatic allegations. It’s never boring,” said Rupert D’Cruz, secretary of the Russian-British Law Association, who heads the Littleton Chambers CIS Dispute Resolution. They typically involve “multi-billion dollar assets, privatized under questionable circumstances,” said one corporate investigator, who requested anonymity due of the nature of his work.

Events in the cases are usually dramatic, with clients battling over every point, said Alastair Shaw, a Swan Turton commercial litigation partner who has worked with CIS clients in the past.

Physical threats are common in disputes involving businessmen from the CIS, D’Cruz said, and litigants typically travel with burly, highly trained security men. 

In court, the CIS cases are complex, involving oral contracts, networks of close family and friends and webs of offshore businesses. Executives from CIS nations, fearful of routine government raids, are among the top clients when it comes to registering businesses in such places as Cypress or the British Virgin Islands, where they can store assets more securely, legal experts said.

While there are no official estimates, lawyers said the disputes are a multi-billion dollar industry. The average legal fees run several million dollars per case, and the number of cases has been growing. Berezovsky’s legal fees alone are reportedly 100 million British pounds ($153.5 million).

The disputes provide growth for the UK’s recession-stricken economy. One entrepreneur opened a firm last year that supplies Russian-speaking paralegals. Dispute consulting firms are hiring more private investigators to accommodate CIS cases, which often lack transparency.

The High Court commercial division moved into a new state-of-the-art 300 million pound ($460.6 million) building in October. The building houses 31 courts and is adorned with a glass staircase and modern art.

English law is often used in business contracts across the CIS for its reliability, independence and established reputation. With capital flight of over $80 billion and Russia’s overworked courts and arbitration tribunals, the disputes are likely to stay in London for years to come, experts say.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s push to increase credibility of the Russian legal system will take years to accomplish, said Evgeny Raschevsk, director of international arbitration and litigation at Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners, a prominent Moscow-based law firm with offices in London.

In the early part of the last decade there was an influx of cases filed in American courts, mainly in New York. But most were turned away because judges ruled that the United States lacked jurisdiction over them, said Glenn Hendrix, an Atlanta-based partner at Arnall Golden Gregory, a law firm that specializes in business disputes.

American courts demand a tighter connection when it comes to accepting foreign cases than the British courts. Moreover, many more oligarchs and businessmen from the former USSR live in London than in New York.

But the number of CIS disputes is growing in the United States as well, Hendrix said. Arnall Golden Gregory, for example, recently hired a lawyer who, “does nothing but Russia and CIS work,” Hendrix said.

“We see potential,” he said.

This post originally appeared at GlobalPost.

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Two Americans Were Shot Dead In Afghanistan As The Koran Burning Row Rages On

$
0
0

afghanistan sea stallion helicopter soldiers mission

NATO has withdrawn all its personnel from Afghan ministries for security reasons after two senior US advisers were killed in a shooting at the interior ministry building in Kabul.

The casualties are believed to be a US colonel and a major. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was carried out in retaliation for the burning of copies of the Qur'an at a NATO base in the country, according to Sky News.

Local media reports indicated that the gunman was an Afghan policeman, but NATO said the killer had not yet been identified or caught. The incident took place in the building’s main command and control center, the BBC reported. The heavily barricaded building in the center of the Afghan capital has now been sealed off.

In a statement, the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) confirmed that two of its members had been shot dead. Gen. John R. Allen, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, said: "We are investigating the crime and will pursue all leads to find the person responsible for this attack.”

“The perpetrator of this attack is a coward whose actions will not go unanswered,” he added, according to The New York Times

The British Embassy in Kabul has also withdrawn civilian members and advisers from its institutions within the capital.

More from GlobalPost: Protests over Quran burning enter 5th day in Afghanistan

The shootings came on another violent day in Afghanistan, as thousands took to the streets for a fifth consecutive day of anti-western demonstrations. Five died in clashes with police, officials said, bringing the death toll across the east of the country to at least 28, The Guardian reported. Many more were wounded.

US President Barack Obama has apologized over the affair, but many Afghans are resentful over an incident they see as symbolic of a broader attack on their religion and culture. Protesters on Friday burned an effigy of the US leader during a demonstration east of Kabul.

More from GlobalPost: General John Allen apologizes over NATO troops' 'improper disposal' of Qur'ans  


Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


Here's What Happened To The $3 Billion Americans Donated To Haiti After The Devastating Earthquake

$
0
0

Haiti Earthquake

To see where the enormous sums of humanitarian aid directed to Haiti after its catastrophic earthquake in 2010 went, a good place to start is the ocean harbor.

That’s where the island’s shore meets the rest of the world. And the best place for that is here at the seaport in the nation’s capital: Port-au-Prince, near the earthquake’s epicenter.

There, at this moment, a gigantic “supermaritime” cargo ship called the Sarine is off-loading more than five metric tons of rice that has just arrived from Miami.

If you think of the rice as post-earthquake assistance money — the individual grains as donated dollars — you might get some idea about what’s happened since the earthquake of Jan. 12, 2010. Not to mention a sense of where the individual rice grains (or the dollars) have gone.

And, like the grains of rice aboard, the dollars mount into the hundreds of millions; even billions. According to some reports, the United States government, American individuals, families and humanitarian groups donated approximately $3 billion. That’s just from America with a total of something like $12 billion coming from all donor nations for funds to be disbursed.

Still, somehow, no one seems quite sure precisely how many grains — or dollars — we’re talking about. The accounting seems to have a sliding scale that can move hundreds of millions of dollars one way or another. At the time of publication, President Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy to Haiti and the co-chair of overseeing the nation’s re-construction for the last two years, hasn’t responded to repeated requests by GlobalPost regarding specific aid and cash donation figures.

Where those billions went following the 7.0-magnitude earthquake that left a government-estimated figure of 220,000 people dead — and at least 1.6 million more homeless — remains a confounding mystery. Inside of the recovery effort, however, are unquestionable successes along with the failures. And, to be fair, because the money came in so quickly and in such great volume, much of it has been wasted or lost like so much rice spilling on the docks. Or stolen, like the sacks of rice from here which will end up in Haiti’s black market for food.

The situation grows complicated … fast. And the metaphor here of this crane off-loading rice by the metric ton packs a still larger and more complex metaphor, according to aid experts, about this country’s history along a still-active fault line of aid, politics and blame in the aftermath of the quake.

As for this specific ship, the Sarine, it has a double-steel hull and is roughly 330 feet long. And now, pulled up to the quay in Port-au-Prince, the “grabbing box” from a huge off-load crane reaches down into the vessel’s hold, and, like the hand of God, lifts another half-ton or so of rice out — hundreds of thousands of individual grains of rice. Then the loose rice is dumped into a white, V-shaped steel hopper whose nozzle sits inside a small hut on the Port-au-Prince waterfront.

Using gravity, the hopper directs the rice into 25-kg (55-pound) white plastic bags, with blue stars on their fronts and the words “AMERICAN RICE” written on their sides. After that — using a sewing machine — the top of each bag is sealed.

As I watch, over and over — bag after bag after bag — a man running the V-shaped hopper turns to me. He rubs his belly.

“I’m hungry,” he says in French.

“Well,” I respond, “why don’t you take some rice for yourself? There’s a lot.”

The man flashes a grin back, and shrugs. “Yes,” he says, “that’s possible. But I’m not that kind of hungry.”

The rice bags move from the factory along an assembly line to waiting trucks which will travel deeper into Haiti to feed a nation still suffering from hunger on a vast scale.

But the economy of rice in Haiti says everything about the condition the country is in. The US government subsidizes and "donates" ton after ton of rice in Haiti and in so doing has through the last several decades completely undercut Haitian rice farmers and left them destitute and migrating into cities where they live in hovels that were destroyed by the quake.

As recently as the early 1980s, Haiti was producing just about all of its own rice. Now more than 60 percent is imported from the US, making it the fourth largest recipient of American rice exports in the world. That was before the quake and now with donated rice coming in as well, Haiti is even more awash in rice while American agribusiness makes billions of dollars every year through generous government subsidies.

There is perhaps some bitter irony here that the subsidies were promoted in large part by President Clinton to help his home state of Arkansas, the largest rice producing state in the US, thereby crippling a sector of the economy in Haiti where Clinton has worked so tirelessly to help with the recovery.

“You might say it is a perfect metaphor for what is wrong with aid to Haiti,” says Marc Cohen, a senior researcher for Oxfam, one of the largest non-government organizations (NGOs) in the world, which raised approximately $106 million for a three-year response in Haiti and finds itself struggling to deliver the aid effectively.

“Instead of bringing subsidized rice in on ships from Miami, we could be helping Haiti grow rice in its own fields,” adds Cohen, who worked for many years in Haiti with the International Food Policy Research Institute and studied the broad economic impact of US rice subsidies, or "Miami rice," as it is known here.

Cohen was part of a team at Oxfam America that this week delivered a scathing report on how reconstruction in Haiti was proceeding at a “snail’s pace,” leaving half a million Haitians still homeless two years after the quake. It urged the Haitian government and donor countries to accelerate the delivery of funds for reconstruction. It applauded the initial emergency relief effort, but said the Haitian government and donor countries have failed to come up with a coordinated strategy to rebuild the country and house the more than 500,000 people still living in tents and under tarpaulins without access to running water, a toilet or a doctor.

According to recently published reports by Oxfam, the UN, the US Government Accountability Office and international aid experts interviewed by GlobalPost, billions of dollars of aid were pledged to Haiti’s reconstruction, but promises of funding have not translated into money on the ground. According to the UN report, as of the end of September 2011, donors had disbursed just 43 percent of the total $4.6 billion pledged for reconstruction in 2010 and 2011.

Officials heading up USAID’s efforts in Haiti say they are frustrated by the political and practical realities that slow the pace of reconstruction. They point to costly and painful failures such as the lack of preparedness for the cholera outbreak which still looms over Haiti. But they also point to hard-fought successes particularly in agriculture, where the average salary of a farmer has risen from $600 a year to $1,100 a year through improved irrigation and infrastructure which have resulted in higher yields.

Elizabeth Hogan, Director of Haiti Task Team for USAID, told GlobalPost, “Fixing Haiti is not something that can be done in the short term. It requires Haitians to take ownership of fixing their own country and their own problems with the support of the international community and increasingly private investment.”

A "star-crossed" history

Haiti is a formerly French colonial island nation occupying a little less than half of the Caribbean island originally called Hispanola (the other half of the island, the Dominican Republic, is a former Spanish colony).

Haiti’s capital and gravitational center, Port-au-Prince, is said to be named for the French sailing ship, Prince, which pulled into the island’s harbor in 1706. The island soon became a critical stop in the slave trade in the Americas, with Port-au-Prince being one of the most popular hubs. The colonial overseers grew rich, exporting sugar and coffee to the world.

Because of this history of slavery and repression, some Haitians believe their island is cursed. By 1793, and due somewhat to the slave trade — not to mention a wide-ranging naval war between Britain and France — a British ship called the HMS Hankey, sailing out of West Africa, arrived in Port-au-Prince, carrying with it some West Africans and some British citizens who had been unsuccessful in colonizing a West African island called Bulama. They were also carrying something new.

This post originally appeared at GlobalPost.

It was ultimately discovered to be a virus called Yellow Fever, and Haiti was its first New World landfall. The virus killed thousands around Port-au-Prince before the ship sailed for Philadelphia to join a convoy for safe passage back to London. (At Philadelphia, Benjamin Rush, a noted physician of the age, surmised the boat carried some new form of “pestilence” after more then 10,000 Philadelphians died within weeks; he ultimately ordered the ship burned to the water line during its trip home.)

This is the star-crossed history of Haiti. It is a nation blessed by location: it has rich farming soils, a lovely and temperate tropical climate and a stunningly resourceful island populace. It has periods of prosperity and hope that are recent enough for many Port-au-Prince residents — and the millions who live in the diaspora — to remember a time when it was a playground for rich tourists and when it confidently produced most of the food it ate.

But its geographic location makes Haiti uniquely prone to cataclysms such as tropical storms and hurricanes, while what is known in geological terms as the "Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault system," a ragged edge that runs along the North American and Caribbean tectonic plates, has triggered a string of earthquakes over the centuries.

Still, perhaps owing to the island’s difficult past, it remains one of the most hopeful places imaginable. Most of the people living there have historically had very little in the way of resources, and have been ruled and controlled by a small wealthy few, which means any good that comes non-wealthy Haitians’ way tends to be celebrated.

By 1804, due to several slave uprisings, the poor natives overthrew French rule and became the first free nation in Latin America. Like other new democratic successes of the Atlantic World, the Haitians discovered self-determination. They also discovered debt, saddled with a French demand for 150 million francs (more than $20 billion in today’s terms) to compensate the colonial power for its lost territory.

Haiti created home-grown problems, too: despots, self-interested rulers and military coups. Eventually people with names like Duvalier and Aristide and Cedras would become world famous for a power-lust and greed that has defined Haitian leadership. On three occasions in the last century, the US military intervened, including the 20,000 US troops deployed in 2010.

And along with political upheaval came regular hurricanes, mudslides and earthquakes, with international aid often “pledged” but few Haitians ever really seeing it. This exploitation by mercantile forces of seemingly beneficent empires combined with the squandering of aid amid a culture of corruption is the very history of the country, and the contemporary reality in which Haiti finds itself.

In the year following the 2010 earthquake, things were no different. In fact, of the $1.14 billion allocated to Haitian Rebuilding and Relief in 2010 by the US Congress, according to the US Government Accountability Office (or GAO), only $184 million had been actually “obligated to projects” at the end of 2010. Today as the guys with the green eyeshades get more deeply involved, it becomes clear that in the wake of the Haitian earthquake of 2010 the US government began to pay itself back for its humanitarian graciousness as much as it actually helped the people of Haiti.

Of the original $1.4 billion allocated by Congress, according to a most recent GAO report, $655 million in funds was reimbursed to the Department of Defense (which, admirably, spent its own money to put ships offshore, drop food and medical aid to those who needed it, bring in troops to secure the airport at Port-au-Prince and provide emergency medical services).

Another $220 million went to repay the US Department of Health and Human Services (which gave goods, food and grants to Haitian evacuees for food and shelter); $350 million went to disaster assistance (an umbrella term that includes everything from medical care to sanitation); $150 million to the US Department of Agriculture (for emergency food and forward-thinking agricultural programs in Haiti); and $15 million to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration fees and aircraft fares for the lucky few Haitian refugees brought to the United States.

Expanding the picture doesn’t change it. The UN Special Envoy for Haiti reported that of the overall $2.4 billion pledged by the UN for humanitarian efforts in Haiti, 34 percent (or $864 million) of those funds were given back to donor civil and military organizations, 28 percent (or $672 million) was laid out to UN and non-governmental humanitarian projects such as housing and health-care, 26 percent (or $624 million) was given to contractors for things like road-building and infrastructure, and 5 percent ($120 million) was given to various international Red Cross/Red Crescent societies.

Not that the people of Haiti didn’t benefit from all this money and assistance. But, really, over the last two years, the effort to assist post-earthquake Haiti has mostly benefited — or at least subsidized — the aid and relief institutions and private corporations that nominated themselves to help Haiti in its 2010-based time of need.

“In the end,” says Robert Fatton Jr., professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia and a son of and authority on contemporary Haiti, “if you read the reports — the UN Report and so on — you’ll see that actual Haitians got less than 1 percent of all the American money pledged.”

In other words, Fatton explained, “99 percent of [the US money spent] went back to the US military, the State Department, NGOs and contractors. The money was clearly intended for Haiti, but it ended up returning to the same place it came from.”

Land Cruiser nation

In a land sometimes referred to as "The Republic of NGOs,” the money that does stay in Haiti often fuels the NGO crowd’s expensive taste for the aesthetic of international aid.

And if you really want to see the face of humanitarian spending post-earthquake in Haiti — the financial clout of the NGOs — there’s only one place to go: the Toyota dealership in Port-au-Prince.

Inside the dealership, we finally run into nice woman in some sort of managerial position, (don’t use my name, she asks). We ask her how sales have been.As with any cataclysm or war zone, a white Toyota Land Cruiser is perhaps the ultimate symbol of international interventional power. And in and around Port-au-Prince, the vehicles are omnipresent. At the dealership, a modern and well-tended building on the city’s airport road (with mirrored-glass windows from floor to ceiling and a perfectly buffed showroom floor).

“Oh,” she says. “We buy a lot of Land Cruisers for sale to the NGOs. But, you know what? A lot come from Gibraltar, too. Loaded off cargo ships that the NGOs bring for themselves. You can tell those, they say Gibraltar on the back, sort of near the license plate. I’d say — here?— the numbers are probably 50 percent from us and 50 percent from Gibraltar.”

But business is good?

The woman is leaning against a desk in the sales office. “I’d say that, for us, 95 percent go to the NGOs, some go to rental agencies, which then rents them to the NGOs and others. But, you know, for all of the Land Cruisers in Haiti now, we also do the maintenance and repairs, if they get in accidents we fix them.”

How much does one cost?

"Each one, with taxes, is $61,100,” she says. “If you have tax-free status, you can get them for less, but then you have to take them with you or give them away here. If you pay the taxes, you can just sell the car.”

And how many do you sell a year?

The woman holds up her hand, right index finger pointed to the ceiling. “One second,” she says.

She disappears into an outlying office, then returns a minute later. Smiling. “This year, we sold 250 of this model. But, you know, right after the earthquake, for several months, we were probably selling that many Land Cruisersevery month. Maybe twice that many.”

I start doing the math in my head. Let’s see: 250 Land Cruisers at $61,000 each is, like, upward of $15 million dollars. So even if they sold only a few more Land Cruisers in 2010 after the first few months (and you have to assume they did) plus the 2011 sales numbers so far (it is December as we’re reporting this), well, conservatively speaking that’s a gross cash influx in the neighborhood of $100 million in the last two years (though of course, some will have to go to taxes). Add to that the repair and maintenance fees, and you’re looking at maybe $110 million. Maybe $150 million. And that’s a conservative estimate.

The woman sees me starting to do the math. She knows this was probably not the right thing to say. After all, if the NGOs figure out that she’s being disloyal, they might not use the dealership anymore. And as the only dealership in the country, maybe all the Land Cruisers would begin to come from Gibraltar. In the world of post-earthquake Haiti, it’s the equivalent of killing a goose laying golden eggs.

She doesn’t want to talk anymore. In so many gentle ways, she suggests our time together is over. As I leave the dealership, I can’t help thinking about all the rice being off-loaded from the Sarine and the money behind it, getting there to help the people of Haiti. Some does appear to get spilled, a little bit, and some of it goes into the bellies (and lives) of the Haitians that need it so badly. But at least, after a week on the ground in this beautiful, star-crossed, and hopeful island nation, now we know a little better where all that money went — or never got to at all.

This is Chapter One of a four-chapter GlobalPost Special Report titled "Fault Line: Aid, Politics and Blame in Post-Quake Haiti." Read Chapter TwoChapter Three and Chapter Four.

This post originally appeared at GlobalPost.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian Oligarch Roman Abramovich Has Some Really Awesome Toys

$
0
0

roman abramovich life

Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich is worth $12.1 billion. That makes him the 68th richest person in the world, according to Forbes.

He made his fortune as the main owner of private investment company Millhouse LLC, and he's known outside Russia as the owner of the Chelsea Football Club, an English Premier League football team.

Abramovich was orphaned as a child. He went to public schools and was an average student.

But today has one of the most fabulous lives in the world. From his gorgeous girlfriend and palatial home to his massive security staff and celebrity-studded parties, you'll hate him by the time you finish reading this.

Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea Football Club, one of the top soccer teams in the world.

Source: The Independent



His frenemy is fellow oligarch Boris Berezovsky. The two bought a controlling stake in an oil company, now they're battling over $6.5 billion in court.

Source: The Guardian



Abramovich has a security staff of 40 people, which reportedly costs him $2 million a year.

Source: The Daily Mail



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

ABRAMOVICH DOES IT AGAIN: Takes $69 Million In Public Shareholder Value For One Of His Pocket Assets

$
0
0

roman abramovich

What an enterprising lad! While Highland Gold, a London-listed public stockholding company, was looking in a forward direction, last Friday Roman Abramovich sold it a gold and silver prospect called Klen for the greater part of which he had paid $103,774 eighteen months earlier. Abramovich has now relieved Highland Gold of $69 million of its hard-earned money for this exchange. In the interval, since Abramovich spent peanuts on prospecting, his rate of return was 34% per month, 610% overall.

This, at least, is one arithmetic of what has happened. Abramovich’s spokesman, John Mann, says there is another truer one, although one of the crucial numbers in that calculation is missing. Highland Gold’s spokesman, Dmitry Yakushkin, isn’t providing that number. Nor is he explaining how Highland Gold counts the reserves and resources which Abramovich has just sold it.

Numis Securities, a London brokerage, which is the nominated (paid) financial advisor to Highland Gold, was asked to say whether $69 million for Klen was a fair and reasonable price. According to the Highland Gold announcement, Numis has calculated very carefully and reported: “Numis Securities Limited, consider that the terms of the said transaction are fair and reasonable insofar as the shareholders of the Company are concerned.” It isn’t known which of the shareholders of Highland Gold Numis had in mind, if not Abramovich and his Millhouse holding, which control 32.6%.

Numis cannot have been thinking of the Canadian goldminer, Barrick Gold, because it had completed selling off all of its 20.37% stake in Highland Gold by April 26, little more than a month before the Klen deal was announced. Company managers own 8% of Highland Gold, and 59.4% is classified as in “public hands”. They have lost 3% of the value of their shares since the Klen transaction was announced.

A geologist employed by Highland Gold, with a degree in his subject from the University of Toronto, is reported in the June 1 deal announcement as “having reviewed and verified the information contained in this release with respect to reserve and resource matters.” As he wasn’t asked to count the reserves and resources in 2010, when they were worth $103,774, and calculate if there had been any increase until last Friday, when they were worth $69 million, his expertise is limited, if not to say irrelevant.

In fact, the value of Abramovich’s property, located near Bilbino in the north central area of the Chukotka region, has dwindled sharply over this time period.

According to the Prime-Tass announcement of November 26, 2010, the Chukotka division of the federal Ministry of Natural Resources estimated the mineable resources of the Verkhne-Krichalskaya licence area as 32 tonnes of gold (1 million troy ounces) and 69 tonnes of silver (2.2 million oz). Then in February of this year, during a public hearing called to consider the environmental impact of mining in the area, the Klen reserves were reported to be 18.6 tonnes (598,000 oz) of gold, 43.8 tonnes (1.4 million oz) of silver. Allowing for imprecision in the terms, reserves and resources, as well as in the geography of Klen and Verkhne-Krichalskaya, about 40% of Abramovich’s gold seems to have disappeared, and 37% of the silver.

The June 1 announcement from Highland Gold announcing the sale and purchase deal with Abramovich compares the Russian classification for reserves and resources with an international one — and more value goes up in smoke. “Based on the results of this activity a C1+C2 reserve of 18.6 tonnes of gold at an average ore grade of 6.3 g/t was registered with the Russian GKZ [State Reserves Committee]. A JORC [Joint Ore Reserves Committee benchmark] compliant resource audit (MICON, 2012) evaluated the deposit as containing potentially mineable gold resources of approximately 0.51 moz of Indicated and 0.04 moz of Inferred resources at an average ore grade of 5.14 g/t for the combined resources.”

Allowing again for imprecision between the two systems of classification, another 48,000 oz of gold have vanished, or 8% of asset value.

And yet Abramovich persuaded the board of directors of Highland Gold, including Eugene Shvidler, Abramovich’s long-time business partner, and Eugene Tenenbaum, his long-time financial advisor, to pay more for less. According to the Highland Gold announcement, Shvidler thinks otherwise. “The Klen addition is an important extension of Highland’s asset base,” he is quoted as saying, “and will have an immediate impact on the Company’s resources.”

Shvidler cannot have studied the annual report of the company, released this past April, carefully enough. For it reports its “JORC compliant resource base” as 11.1 million oz as of December 31, 2011. If the June 1 numbers are reliable ones, they add up to just 4.5% of the company’s aggregate.

The two Moscow institutional analysts who have examined the transaction so far haven’t been persuaded either. This is how Aton counts for comparative valuation: “Highland Gold said today that it has reached agreement to purchase the company Klen, which owns the rights for exploration and production on the same gold mine. The agreed price is $ 69 million, excluding debt. Klen is a subsidiary company, associated with Primerod International Ltd, the main shareholder of Highland Gold. An audit of the resource base of JORC indicated resource estimate of 0.5 million ounces of gold at an average grade of 5.14 grams of precious metal per tonne. In 2011 the company acquired Polymetal’s Kutyn gold deposit for $67 million to stockpile 1.2 million ounces of gold, that is, the transaction price was $ 56 per ounce of reserves. Highland Gold is going to buy Klen for $ 138 per ounce of reserves, ie almost 2.5 times more than the Polymetal transaction. The fact that the transaction will [involve] an affiliate of Primerod creates a negative opinion about the transaction.”

As arithmetic goes, that’s pretty discreet. Valentina Bogomolva, mining analyst for Uralsib Bank, does her counting this way: “The Klen gold deposit will be mined by the open pit method, with production scheduled to commence in 2015. The deposit’s JORC resources amount to 0.51 moz of indicated and 0.04 moz of inferred resources at an average ore grade of 5.14 g/t…. The seller of the Klen deposit, LLC Klen, is affiliated with Primerod Int, HGM’s main shareholder (owns 32%). The resource base is the only disclosed parameter; we value the project at an EV/reserves & resources multiple of $125/oz, which implies a 45% premium to the average price of $486/oz of Russian gold companies. Our average multiple includes Polymetal Int, the most expensive Russian gold name, which is traded at $181/oz EV/reserves & resources; we note that the resource base of all public Russian gold names includes the resources of operating facilities. Based on our estimation, Highland itself is traded at an EV/reserves & resources multiple of $31/oz and therefore the acquisition of a greenfield deposit at an EV/reserves & resources multiple of $125/oz appears to be expensive….As we consider the acquisition expensive, and given it was purchased from a party affiliated to the main shareholder company, we remain cautious on the corporate governance at Highland Gold Mining, and, based on the information disclosed by the company, we consider the deal to be dilutive for minorities. As we are not very optimistic on HGM’s operating prospects, we also reiterate that despite the fundamental upside we see in Highland, it is a relatively risky investment.”

Abramovich’s spokesman, John Mann, explains that much of this arithmetic is mistaken. That’s because Abramovich bought Klen in October 2009, Mann claims, and only a year later added the Verkhne-Krichalsakaya prospect. In Mann’s arithmetic they are separate and their reserves and resources must be counted cumulatively.

Geographically and geologically, the latter is adjacent to, surrounds, and includes the former. Or as Highland Gold claims: “The Klen licence area encompasses approximately two square kilometres and hosts an epithermal vein-type gold deposit with similar geological characteristics to other gold deposits in the region… The Verkhne-Krichalskaya exploration and mining licence incorporates the Klen licence and encompasses an area of approximately 996 square kilometres, hosting a number of small placer gold deposits. Historic exploration work on the property recognised numerous other geological features, including wide areas of hydrothermal alteration and geochemical anomalies, which are indicative of the gold prospectivity of the property. Several exploration targets have been identified which the Company believes have the potential to substantially contribute to Klen’s current resource base. In the course of the development of the Klen deposit the Company plans to systematically explore the prospects on the Verkhne-Krichalskaya license.”

According to Mann, “Klen and Verkhne-Krichalskaya are separate licenses, so yes, the counts are separate. The 18.6 tonnes is just Klen.” Klen plus Verkhne-Krichalskaya ought to sum to more than each counted one by one.

Asked to clarify which is which, and how to count, Mann says: “In October 2009, Millhouse acquired the company Klen, and with it the Klen license. We subsequently continued exploration work, more than doubling booked reserves, and prepared a technical plan for production at the site by 2015. (as per Highland release: 18.6 tons of gold reserves) In November 2010, Klen won a natural resource auction for the adjacent Verkhne-Krichalskaya block, paying 3.3 million rubles [$103,774]. We subsequently drafted an exploration plan and began initial exploration work. (when acquired, the site’s estimated resources were 32 tons gold, 69 tons silver).” According to Mann, in 2009, when Millhouse bought Klen, its reserves were just 8 tonnes of gold (257,200 oz).

How much did Abramovich (Millhouse) pay for Klen in October 2009, and from whom did he buy it? On the answers to these questions depend the valuation of the assets which Highland Gold has just paid $69 million to acquire, and the margin of Abramovich’s profit which Numis judges to be fair and reasonable. According to Mann, the seller was “a local small businessman (sorry, don’t have the name).”

As for the price Millhouse paid, Mann says: “I don’t have that figure (anyway, wouldn’t the fairness opinion be based on reserves and other current considerations?!) I honestly don’t have the name.”

The history of the Klen prospect is obscure. According to a release by the federal mine licence regulator Rosprirodnadzor, on April 6, 2006, the Klen mining licence was revoked; at the time the owner or licensee was something called Northern Ore Technologies. At that point, the asset value was zero, according to a source at the Chukotka branch of the Regional Fund for Geological Information. That’s because Northern Ore Technologies, which had first acquired the Klen licence from the state in 1999, was bankrupt.

What happened next isn’t clear. If Abramovich bought Klen from a local businessman in October 2009, as his spokesman now claims, that businessman must have acquired it from the regional administration sometime in the previous three years.

Presumably, ownership reverted to the state in April 2006, under the administration of the Chukotka regional branch of the natural resources ministry. The governor of the region until July of 2008 was Abramovich. He was a busy man; perhaps he didn’t know what was happening in the bowels of his administration, let alone in the bowels of the earth comprising the Klen and Verkhne-Krichalskaya prospects.

Asked to say what happened to the Klen license between its revocation and reversion to the state in April 2006 and the acknowledged Millhouse purchase in October 2009, Chukotka officials reveal that it was acquired in 2007 by a company called OAO Klen. In 2011, Chukotka officials say, the licence was transferred to OOO Klen. That’s a change from open-joint stock company (OAO) to limited liability company (OOO) — a corporate restructuring, but not a change of ownership. Abramovich appears to have behind the ownership of the Klen licence from 2007, when he was still governor.

The Chukotka officials also reveal that because of the bankruptcy of Northern Ore Technologies and the reversion of the Klen license to the state, the subsequent sale transaction was a “quiet one” at a “low price”. Just how low isn’t on record. According to one Chukotka official, “the story is very muddy and it’s difficult to dig out. Who has outbid [another] and for whose benefit he acted it is difficult to say. It’s possible there was a special purpose vehicle [for someone]. If you dig, the fate of many fields comes up as very strange.”

Step back further in time, because there is something about Abramvoich’s latest deal which is reminiscent of one he arranged in Chukotka nine years ago. In September 2003 Abramovich was almost three years into his governorship. That was one reason he went to a great deal of trouble to disguise a transaction that month in which he got Highland Gold to pay him $34.9 million for a gold prospect he owned, also in Chukotka region, called Maiskoye. On that occasion, he used a front-man named Oleg Savchenko. The evidence of Abramovich’s part and profit in the transaction came directly from Christine Coignard, an employee of Highland Gold at the time. Five and a half years later, Highland Gold sold Maiskoye for $109 million, so if there were sore feelings about Abramovich’s earlier price and profit-taking, this deal helped salve them. And of course , as a stakeholder in Highland Gold Abramovich was entitled to a one-third share in the threefold profit. Here’s the rest of this tale.

So was Abramovich behind the local businessman who bought Klen from the regional branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources a year after the local regulator had taken it away from somebody who had run out of cash? And how much did Abramovich pay when he officially got his hands on it? This is the arithmetic Abramovich isn’t acknowledging. According to spokesman Mann, “you’ve obviously not looked in the right place because we acquired the company Klen in October 2009. The previous owner was not affiliated with Millhouse. But I am impressed by the level of imagination involved in your giant leaps of logic! Your assumptions are, of course, entirely inaccurate.”

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Amazing Toys Of Russia's NEW Wealthiest Oligarch

$
0
0

abramovich usmanov

Alisher Usmanov is now Russia's richest man thanks to the investment he made in Facebook three years ago. 

The oligarch, whose investment term DST has invested in several Silicon Valley startups and sold $1.4 billion worth of Facebook stock during the company's IPO, is currently worth some $18.1 billion, according to Forbes.

While the rich and famous hope to pick up a piece at Sotheby's auction, Usmanov was able to poach the entire collection before it even went for sale. He is also building a Roman bath under his house.

Usmanov owns Beechwood house, a Victorian mansion in London that he bought for $77 million.

Source: bornrich.com



Usmanov's neighbors in Highgate, London include Jude Law, Annie Lennox and George Michael.

Source: bornrich.com



Usmanov is in the process of building a huge, Roman-style bathing complex and underground swimming pool in his Victorian mansion.

Source: bornrich.com



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

A Black Hole For Evraz And A Black Eye For Roman Abramovich

$
0
0

image

MOSCOW—Evraz, the Russian steelmaker listed on the London Stock Exchange main board, is being sued in the UK High Court for $35.8 million by a group of Swiss investors over a failed project to build a terminal for iron-ore and coking coal at Yuzhny port, on the Ukrainian Black Sea coast near Odessa. The dispute is over an asset on which Evraz has put a substantially higher value on its own balance-sheets than the Swiss investors are claiming in valuation and compensation in court.

The High Court claim papers were filed on April 26. At the same time, a court in Cyprus agreed to impose a freeze over money in the accounts of an Evraz subsidiary operating in Cyprus called Watney Ltd.

The court claims indicate that Evraz had signed an agreement in 2007 with Revolution! Enterprises, a British Virgin Islands-registered company owned by a Swiss investment concern called Leman Services et Investissements Sarl to construct the new terminal. Their joint venture vehicle was a Cyprus-registered company called Frotora. Evraz company records confirm it owned 51% of Frotora.

Records at the Swiss canton of Vaud indicate that Leman is a limited liability entity, first established in 2002, and jointly owned by Bruce Littman and Daniel Littman. The former is listed as senior vice president at EFG, the Geneva-based private banking group. EFG’s Cyprus banking subsidiary is also identified in the court documents as involved in the port project.

The plan of the joint venture was acquire the land for the terminal, relocating a village of 120 people, and spend up to $500 million on construction of new facilities, including railway, roads and berths. The site, according to the Yuzhny port authority, is outside the port boundaries, and is owned by a Ukrainian company called Prichaly Kominterna. This is described in the court papers as having been owned by Frotora.

In its annual report for 2007, Evraz reported it had bought several production assets in Ukraine, including the Sukha Balka iron ore mining and processing complex, the Dnepropetrovsk Iron and Steel Works, and three coking plants. “These acquisitions,” Evraz announced in the annual report, “will allow us to increase our iron ore self-sufficiency and ensure further upstream integration. It will also create captive intra-group demand for coking coal for the surplus production of Evraz Group’s coal mines in Siberia.” For that deal, Evraz paid $1.1 billion in cash and 4.2 million in shares.

The annual report also discloses: “In 2007, the Group acquired a 51% ownership interest in Frotora Holdings Ltd. (Cyprus). This purchase does not qualify for a business combination as the acquired company does not constitute a business. The company’s assets comprise only rights under a long-term lease of land to be used for a construction of a commercial sea port in the Ukraine. These rights were valued at $65 million and included in contract terms category of the intangible assets.” The same notice reappears in Evraz’s annual report for 2008.

Evraz was aiming, the 2007 report leaves no doubt, to use the port to service its newly acquired iron-ore mine, coking batteries, and steel mill. “With this transaction Evraz Group also aims to enter one of the lowest cost steel producing regions, and thus to further diversify Evraz Group’s asset geography.” Note that if Evraz was valuing its 51% stake in the port project at start-up at $65 million, then its joint venture Swiss partner’s stake must have been worth $62.5 million.

The two partners also agreed that Evraz would be obliged to buy out the 49.05% stake in the project owned by Revolution! Enterprises if the latter exercised its put option to sell at a price fixed by an independent market appraisal of the terminal asset. Then the steel and commodity trade crisis struck Evraz in autumn of 2008, triggering the group’s near-insolvency with more than $10 billion in debts, and the Kremlin was asked to rescue Abramovich and bail out his assets in the US. Evraz then ran into trouble over the Sukha Balka iron-ore mine with Ukrainian shareholder, Igor Kolomoisky.

In its annual report for 2010, Evraz discloses that it had unilaterally devalued the port project assets and rejected its Swiss partner’s claim. “In 2010, the non-controlling shareholder’s right to put a 49% share in Frotora Holdings Ltd. (‘Frotora’) to the Group at fair value of the ownership interest became exercisable. The Group derecognised a 49% ownership interest in Frotora amounting to $6 million and accrued a liability for the same amount. The assets of Frotora comprised mostly the rights under a long-term lease of land to be used for a construction of a commercial sea port in Ukraine. These rights are included in contract terms category of the intangible assets. In 2010, the Group recognised an impairment loss of $30 million in respect of these rights due to the change in plans for the use of this land.”

That statement was prepared in March of 2011. It appears to suggest that it valued the Swiss 49% at $6 million, and its own 51% at $30 million. The statement also appears to imply that evraz didn’t intend to pay its partner the $6 million, but was charging its own balance-sheet, and thus its shareholders, $30 million.

In the same month, another valuation, prepared for Revolution! Enterprises and Leman by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), estimated $35.8 million as the price of its stake for sale to Evraz under the option agreement. Compared to Evraz’s reported valuation in 2007 and 2008, this amounted to a reduction of 43%.

According to the UK and Cyprus court documents, Evraz refused to agree to pay anything to the Swiss. But it has subsequently sold its own stake in the project in April of this year for $9.2 million, 50% less than the Swiss have demanded. The latter then applied to the Cypriot court to freeze whatever money may have come to Watney for this transaction. The freeze order is dated April 27.

Kseniya Petrushko, a spokesman for Evraz in Moscow, says the company is not commenting on the court claims for the time being.

The buyer of Evraz’s stake is reported in the court documents to be a Ukrainian company called Bravex. It is identified on the internet as a wholesaler and distributor of imported goods, including cars, and a specialist in cargo handling and warehousing. Whether it is connected to the major Ukrainian steelmaking and mining groups is not known. Noone picks up the telephone at its Kharkiv office numbers.

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Please follow International on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Viewing all 74 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>