?

Log in

No account? Create an account
lawyer

Записки экономического преступника

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
RosInvestCo UK Ltd. - Аргументы РФ из -за которых, очевидно, выплатили 3. 5 мил. вместо 75
lawyer
dmitrygololobov
30. In short, prior to its purchase of Yukos shares, Claimant could not have been unaware, or at the very least was on notice, that Claimant should have conducted an inquiry as to the legality of Yukos’ tax reporting, the magnitude of the tax re-assessments, the likelihood that the tax re-assessments would be upheld by the Russian courts, the fact that Yugansk shares had already been seized, the likelihood that Yugansk shares would be auctioned for substantially less than valuations previously obtained, and Yukos’ owners and principals would be prosecuted and jailed for related tax crimes. This information was not lost on the financial community, which had caused Yukos stock to fall from its range of US$9 – 15 per share for the period January 1, 2003 through April 30, 2004 to a range of US$3 – 4 per share for the period August 1, 2004 through October 31, 2004.
31. Claimant’s purchase of shares of Yukos in November and December 2004 therefore could not have been made on reasonable and legitimate expectations that did not take these adverse circumstances and all of this negative public information and negative market experience into account. Indeed, it would not appear that any “expropriating” event is alleged in the Request for Arbitration that was not disclosed or foreshadowed in public documents prior to Claimant’s alleged purchases of Yukos shares. At the very least, Claimant’s purchase of Yukos shares in November and December 2004 involved a strong element of risk and speculation, thus precluding a determination of expropriation.


  • 1
And where can we get the rest of the decision?...... Or is this something you obtained through your connections to the various parties involved?

  • 1