The large deals between Russian companies increasingly conclude in a jurisdiction outside of Russia. The causes of the exodus of domestic jurisdiction are not always a desire to save money on taxes or to hide something in the management structure. The Russian businessmen and lawyers believe that Russian legislation is very inconvenient for management of business (clumsy laws, an actual restriction of freedom of contract etc) Also the Russian judicial system isnt the peak of perfection. Its the stagnant, corrupt, dependent, inclined to formalism system. London has become the preferred jurisdiction for big business disputes coming out of Russia and other former Soviet Union countries. More than half of cases in the British High Court commercial division involve clients from Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/roman-abramovich-court-boris-berezovsky and a third of all cases at the London Court of International Arbitration involve a Russian-speaking party. _____________________________ Btw folks how many businessmen from other countries including US and EU prefer the British High Court and London Court of International Arbitration?
LONDON, September 9 (Itar-Tass) Roman Abramovichs barrister Jonathan Sumption was rewarded with $12 million, the biggest fee in the British legal practice, for beating Boris Berezovsky in court, the Sunday Times reports. The remuneration four times exceeded the billing of the defense of Berezovsky, who lost the court battle to the Chelsea soccer club owner, the newspaper said. It said Berezovsky was startled with the payment to the Abramovich lawyer and said he would appeal it later in September. The total bill Berezovsky has to foot is $160 million. Being the defeated party, he shall bear the expenditures of both sides. The court said Sumption would get $9.2 million for preparing for the court hearing and making his speech, and $3.2 million more for booking of his service. http://www.itar-tass.com/c154/515730.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FULL JUDGMENT OF GLOSTER J IN Berezovsky v Abramovich Action 2007 Folio 942 Executive summary in relation to Issue B2 71. No agreement was made at the Dorchester Hotel meeting on 13 March 2000 that Mr.Berezovsky and Mr.Patarkatsishvili would have a share of the aluminium business created by the merger of the pre-merger aluminium assets with Mr. Deripaskas aluminium interests. There was no agreement made at that meeting to the effect that Mr.Berezovsky, Mr.Patarkatsishvili and Mr. Abramovich would pool the pre-merger aluminium assets acquired in February 2000 with Mr. Deripaskas aluminium interests; Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili had no interest in the pre-merger aluminium assets and Mr. Abramovich and Mr. Deripaska had already agreed to pool such assets as between themselves. In particular, no agreement made at that meeting by Mr. Abramovich, or by Mr. Abramovich and Mr. Deripaska, with Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili: . i) that Mr. Abramovich would hold 50% of his interest in the merged business on trust for Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili; . ii) that none of Mr. Abramovich, Mr. Deripaska, Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili would sell his interest in RusAl without the prior agreement of the others; or . iii) that Mr. Abramovich would assume fiduciary obligations in relation to Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Patarkatsishvili. 72. The evidence relating to this issue supports my conclusion that the relationship between Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Abramovich was based upon a protection, Draft 31 August 2012 10:10 Page 31 or krysha, type relationship and not on any contractually binding agreement between the two men. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/berezovsky-abramovich-summary.pdf http://www.forbes.ru/sobytiya/10905...movicha-tekst-resheniya-suda-ob-otkaze-v-iske I guess Elizabeth Gloster got a lot of interesting and useful information about so-called Russian Business.
