It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As MosNews reported earlier, a Houston court placed a 10-day temporary restraining order, forbidding the auction on Sunday, Dec. 19, of a controlling stake in Yuganskneftegaz, the main production subsidiary of Yukos. The restraining order was specifically placed on Gazprom and the consortium of Western banks.
According to the information provided by Russia’s Itar-Tass agency, which quoted high-ranking Western financial sources, the consortium made a decision to “freeze” the credit deal with Gazprom at least until a final decision is made by the Houston court.
If as widely expected Gazprom wins the auction on Sunday, legal action to seize its gas exports "is one of the alternatives," a US lawyer acting for the shareholders' holding company, Group Menatep, told journalists in Moscow.
"The defendant can be the Russian government, the tax ministry, Gazprom, or any company that will facilitate the auction," Sanford Saunders, from Washington law firm Greenberg Traurig, added. (link)
Originally posted by dixon
Well, it all hinges on jurisdiciton. If there are assets in the US, then no problems with jurisdiction. If the deal is to be done in the US, then no problems here again. Again, if the proposed deal is to be substantially performed in the US, the US Courts have jurisdiction to stop it.
Russian embattled oil giant Yukos Wednesday made a filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, in an attempt to stop the auction of its major asset Yuganskeneftegaz.
The US court on Thursday ordered a 10-day halt to the planned sale of Yuganskneftegaz to allow the embattled oil firm time to seek a permanent injunction.
The Russian authorities insist on handling the matter under Russian law, noting that the US court ruling has no legal effect in Russia as Russia and the United States have no bilateral agreement on mutual recognition and execution of court rulings.
Originally posted by Disturbed DelivererIf that company taking part has assets in America, we have authority over them.
Doesn't that means that the Saudis and the French can intervene in US business mergers or purchases by claiming jurisdiction?