Legal Aspects of International Business for Non-Lawyers

2) What is a “worldwide freezing order”? What is a “disclosure order”? What exactly did the court order the defendant to disclose? Did the defendant comply?

3) What was the result of the non-compliance with the disclosure order?

4) What is “contempt of court”? Why did the court found the defendant in contempt? What was the result?

5) Did the court evaluate evidence relating to the principal claim (some $5 bln)? Why or why not?

6) What was the outcome of the principal case?

7) Why do the parties continue to struggle over the professional privilege issue? Why is it important?

8) What issue did the Supreme Court agree to review? Why is it important?

Re Kekhman (UK, 2014)

Essential reading:

Bankruptcy "tourism": Russian banks fail to annul English bankruptcy of Russian businessman

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2014/07/bankruptcy-tourism-russian-banks-fail-to-annul-english-bankruptcy-of-russian-businessman#sthash.vNN5W4mZ.dpuf

Accessibility of English bankruptcy to foreign debtors—JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/randi/accessibility-of-english-bankruptcy-to-foreign-debtors/

Additional reading:

Банкрут, или Дома хорошо, а в гостях лучше [see links inside]

http://zakon.ru/blog/2015/2/13/nadpisi_na_russkom_yazyke_bankrut_ili_doma_xorosho_a_v_gostyax_luchshe

Technical reading:

Judgment

http://zakon.ru/blog/2015/2/13/nadpisi_na_russkom_yazyke_bankrut_ili_doma_xorosho_a_v_gostyax_luchshe

Issues for discussion:

1) What court considered the case? Who were the parties? What was the principal issue?

2) Did the English court have jurisdiction over the bankruptcy case under English law?

3) The applicants argued that the court had to exercise its discretion to dismiss the bankruptcy case. What was their arguments in favor of that proposition? Do you think they were right?

4) One of the issues was whether or not the English judgment in the bankruptcy case may be recognized in Russia. Why is it important?

5) Generally, how an English court resolves issues of foreign law? Who were the expert witnesses in this case?

6) The judge changed his mind on the issue of whether or not the judgment may be recognized in Russia. Did it affect the ultimate outcome of the case?

7) What was the outcome? What are its probable practical consequences? may it be recognized in Russia? In other countries?

YUKOS Shareholders v Russia (The Hague, 2009-2014)

Essential reading:

Court orders Russia to pay $50 billion for seizing Yukos assets

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-russia-yukos-idUSKBN0FW0TP20140728

Hague Court; Russia Did Steal Yukos And Must Pay $50 Billion Damages

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/28/hague-court-russia-did-steal-yukos-and-must-pay-50-billion-damages/

Additional reading:

Yukos v. Russia: Issues and legal reasoning behind US$50 billion awards

https://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/09/04/yukos-v-russia-issues-and-legal-reasoning-behind-us50-billion-awards/

Technical reading:

Final Awards Issued in 3 Arbitrations Between Former Shareholders of Yukos and the Russian Federation

http://www.pca-cpa.org/shownews.asp?nws_id=440&pag_id=1261&ac=view

Documents

http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1599

Issues for discussion:

1) What were the grounds for arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction?

2) Do you think Russia must comply with a treaty its parliament has not ratified? Why or why not?

3) Yukos went bankrupt because of tax claims. Do you think this amounted to an “expropriation” in terms of the treaty (ECT)?

4) Did Yukos abuse Russian tax law, according to the tribunal? How did the abuse, if any, affected the award?

5) What was the amount of the award? How it was calculated?

Monday, June 1, 2015

Slides: 6

Presentation #6 (International Taxation):
https://yadi.sk/i/DP3FrB9VgzT9H

Moncrief Oil International, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom

No. 017-229664-08, District Court, Tarrant County, Texas (Fort Worth).

Essential reading:

Perry Mason Moment Halts Moncrief $1.37 Billion Gazprom Suit

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-02/moncrief-drops-1-37-billion-gazprom-suit-after-sanction-request

Texas Firm's $1.4 Billion Suit Against Gazprom Collapses On Faked Evidence

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/02/02/texas-firms-1-4-billion-suit-against-gazprom-collapses-on-faked-evidence/

Additional reading:

Russian Gas Co. Must Face Trade Secrets Suit: Texas Court [2013]

http://www.law360.com/articles/469088/russian-gas-co-must-face-trade-secrets-suit-texas-court

Moncrief Pulls Plug Midway Through $1.36B Gazprom Trial [2015]

http://www.law360.com/articles/617276/moncrief-pulls-plug-midway-through-1-36b-gazprom-trial

Technical reading:

Defendants Second Motion for Sanctions

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/gazpromsanctions.pdf

Issues to discuss:

1) What was the origin of the conflict between Moncrief and Gazprom? What was the controversy in this particular case? Was it a contract case or a tort case? What country’s law governed the relevant relations of the parties?

2) Why did the Texas court accept jurisdiction over the dispute? What was the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court on that?

3) What kind of trade secrets did Moncrief allege to have been stolen? What evidence did Moncrief have on the existence of the trade secrets?

4) What made Gazprom’s attorneys think the evidence was faked? What was their evidence of the forgery?

5) Is it common practice in US courts to introduce new evidence during cross examination of a witness before a jury? Why did Moncrief’s attorneys object to that? Why did the judge overrule the objection?

6) What did Gazprom’s attorneys ask for? Explain the meaning of the defendants’ motion for sanctions’ third section title (page 11: “Moncrief’s deception warrants death penalty sanctions”).

7) What was the outcome of the case? Did the jury return a verdict? If not, why? Who has resolved the dispute and how?