It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BUSINESS: Russian Oil Giant YUKOS Denied Bankruptcy In USA

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:46 AM
An American court has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to grant bankruptcy protection for YUKOS assets in America. The court acknowledges that the Russian governments actions were confiscatory under US law. The court ruled however that company assets in America were under Russian jurisdiction and could not be given bankruptcy protection. US Bankruptcy could have protected some YUKOS assets from a recent Russian government auction, imposed in order to settle a tax bill.
A judge has dismissed an attempt by Russian oil giant Yukos to gain bankruptcy protection in the US.
Yukos filed for Chapter 11 protection in Houston in an unsuccessful attempt to halt the auction of its Yugansk division by the Russian authorities.

Yukos had argued that a US court was entitled to declare it bankrupt before its Yugansk unit was sold, since it has local bank accounts and its chief finance officer Bruce Misamore lives in Houston.

Yugansk - Yukos' main oil producing unit - was sold to help pay off $27.5bn (£14.5bn) in unpaid taxes. It was bought for $9.4bn by a previously unknown group, which was in turn bought up almost immediately by state-controlled oil company Rosneft.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Wow, so the United States is declaring that it has no right to interfere with the assets of the recently nationalized Russian oil giant in this country. The decision is obviously politically important, and the question to ask is, was it politically influenced? I'd watch out for possible repercussions against that court from our government, or for any overt signs that our government might for some reason want to let Russia regress. Whatever has happened, this is not a decision I would have expected at all.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Banshee]

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:23 AM
I'm not one to take things personally, but I am intrigued by the rapid pace at which this submission is being voted down.
I would be appreciative if somebody would comment on exactly what is amiss with this article. Thanks

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:33 AM
Maybe it was a bit too 'wordy' in the top/first paragraph.
Just a thought.


[edit on 25-2-2005 by sanctum]

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:41 AM
Thanks for the tip. I edited to condense a couple of sentences into a single more direct one.

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:43 AM
Maybe they are lookin' for spell-checked stuff in the news section?

And maybe a more newsy feel and a less regular posty feelin'?

I dunno...

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:18 AM
Thanks for the input. I don't happen to have any form of spell-check in my computer, which means that when mistakes result from hasty typing they almost always remain.

As for the "regular post feel" I'm not entirely sure what you mean. We are required to give "our spin" on the issues at the end of these posts. If we weren't I usually wouldn't. I think I do a decent job normally of saving my opinions for the correct section.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:30 AM
I gave you a yes on the submission mostly on the fact that is a story that won't be seen an many other places. This is a story that probably should get a little more mainsteam coverage, imho.

new topics

top topics


log in