On this day, Yukos acknowledged its judicial failure in the United States

On this day, Yukos acknowledged its judicial failure in the United States

“Yukos representatives acknowledged the futility of efforts to use for its claims the American bankruptcy laws”. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its readers of what happened on March 23, 2005.

On this day 17 years ago, on March 23, 2005, Yukos announced the termination of its judicial activity on the territory of the United States, having acknowledged the futility of its efforts “to defend the assets of the company with the help of American juridical instruments, in particular, with the help of the above mentioned bankruptcy law.

The essence of the matter had been known from December 2004, when the Oil Company Yukos made a loud announcement in the press saying that “an unconstrained plea about reorganization” had been filed in the Court of the South District of Texas (Houston), to be more precise, a petition of bankruptcy, and that the company demanded from the American court to stop the auction sales of a stock of shares of the company “Yuganskneftegaz”, which the Russian authorities had decided to sell in a tender for settling tax arrears of the oil company.

(See also the article “On this day, the firm “Yukos USA Inc” started using machinations in Texas”. The firm Yukos USA Inc” was a shell company. Accounts were made “retroactively”).

Con artists from Yukos decided simply to derail the auction sales of “Yuganskneftegaz” (YNG), the main production assets of “the most transparent” oil company, thus blocking the process of settling the tax backs made by Khodorkovsky and his henchmen, for the sake of personal financial interests. The Court, with a Texas swing, accepted the plea, although there was a great number of reasons to dismiss the plea, and, in fact, prohibited Western companies to take part in the auction sales.

In Russia, nobody was afraid of this ban, the auction sales were carried out with a sufficient number of Russian companies taking part in it. The earnings of the sales came to the state budget, thus closing the tax hole made by Khodorkovsky and other “main shareholders”. To put it simpler, one of the tasks of the filed plea failed. As, by the way, failed the second task – to intercept the company, acting in the Russian jurisdiction and to transfer it into the jurisdiction of the United States through American bankruptcy procedures. And if the Court of Texas decided to undertake something with regard to the participation of foreign companies in the auction sales of the shares of “Yuganskneftegaz”, the same Court in Texas dismissed the request of the con artists from the company “Yukos USA Inc” to interfere with the Russian jurisdiction.

(See also the article “On this day, a court of Texas sent swindlers from Yukos to Russia”).

Efforts from the part of Yukos to appeal the received refusal turned out to be unsuccessful. “Wishes and dreams” of the claimants bumped into the principle of “non-interference of a court of one land into the actions of authorities (including courts) of another state, i.e. the principle of an elementary judicial sovereignty.

(See also the article “On this day, a court of Texas refused to defend Yukos assets”).

In general, the position of Yukos in the United States looked as a farce, at least, because the failure of the proceedings was evident as early as at the end of February 2005. “The decision of the Judge knocks to pieces Yukos hopes to win in the United States compensation claims”, acknowledged Yukos representative Zachery Clement. “This is the last instance that the company could address to”, said the lawyer. Nevertheless, various illusions had been cast in the press, until Yukos waved the white flag before the Court in Texas.

“EFFORTS TURNED OUT COMPLETELY FRUITLESS”

“Representatives of Yukos admitted the futility of efforts to use for this purpose the American bankruptcy law”, reported the business newspaper “Vedomosti”. According to the American representative of the company Mike Lake, this, actually, means the end of the case. According to him, “Yukos lawyers have not decided yet about further steps, directed to saving the company”, pointed out the newspaper reminding of the fact that “Judge Leticia Clark closed the ace, and Federal Judge Nancy Atlas supported this decision”.

“Houston is already in the past”, commented the newspaper “Kommersant” in a piece under the spiteful title “Yukos want to die back home”.

The newspaper “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” tried to find in this barrel of “borehole” poison at least a gram of ointment, having reported that Yukos had left America and had been getting across to Europe”. “It’s impossible to say that absolutely all proceedings that took place in the United States, were completely fruitless for the oil company”, wrote the news outlet citing Yukos proclamation.

As it turned out, “during the hearing of the bankruptcy case Yukos achieved considerable results with regard to the value of its assets. Yukos also sees as an achievement direct and indirect hints of the American courts demonstrating their disapproval of the actions of the Russian authorities”, pointed out the newspaper with a certain astonishment.

THE MITH ABOUT “FAVORABLE ATTITUDE”

It is, really, astonishing that on the eve of Yukos judicial failure different hints launched in the press “indicated” a “favorable attitude” of the court towards the position of Yukos. Yet, in the end of the day, the American court demonstrated a completely favorable attitude to its own American laws.

Yukos effort to turn the bankruptcy system of the United states into a safe haven for all neglectful taxpayer of the country was wisely rejected”, said Michael Goldberg, a partner of the legal company “Baker Botts”, commenting Yukos unsuccessful efforts to use for its dubious purposes the American juridical venue”, notes the website Prigovor.ru.

(See the previous article “On this day, Robert Amsterdam cheated the Western press”. A noisy heat of Khodorkovsky’s lawyer trying to run ahead of Strasbourg’s loco. “Robert Amsterdam is not completely posted about the rules of the ECtHR”. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its readers of what happened on March 22, 2004).

Popular articles