Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Did ESPN dump Hank Williams, Jr., or did the country artist ditch ESPN? Either way, the two have gone their separate ways. ESPN initially removed Williams’ famous Monday Night Football intro (“Are you ready for some football?”) after the singer compared President Obama to Hitler , but that appeared to be…
Continue reading …The US and Yemen shared a counterterrorism victory with the death of Anwar al-Awlaki , but behind the scenes, relations are growing tense. Yemen complains the US isn’t helping fight al-Qaeda-affiliated militants within its borders, while the US has publicly called for Ali Abdullah Saleh’s ouster, and is wary of getting…
Continue reading …Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries are on a post-wedding media blitz, which so far is playing out just as one would expect. Four signs the couple is getting even more ridiculous : They’ve already renewed their vows : Yes, a mere six weeks after getting hitched , Kim and Kris apparently felt the…
Continue reading …Look out South Carolina lawmakers—Nikki Haley is grading you. The governor this week followed through on her promise to issue “report cards” for the state’s legislators, grading them on how well they supported her agenda, the Columbia Free Times reports. Unsurprisingly all the Fs went to Democrats, though one…
Continue reading …As support from working women falls, the coalition acts by giving 80,000 extra families childcare help for the first time The coalition has responded to growing poll pressure to improve its standing among women by announcing an extra £300m to help with childcare costs when the universal credit starts in 2013. Writing in the Guardian, Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, claims the reforms “will mean more women will be able to take steps towards employment, more parents can work part-time, or full-time, and their children will grow up in a family where their parents are positively contributing to society and growth in the economy”. The extra £300m funding will cover the cost of making childcare available for the first time to the 80,000 women who currently do not receive help because they work 16 hours a week or less. If the extra cash had not been found to add to the £2bn childcare pot set aside by government, then the decision to help women working 16 hours or less would have reduced the money available for those working longer hours. Low-income working women suffered a big cut in childcare support in April following the government’s decision to reduce funding from 80% to 70% of childcare costs. Poorer families now will be able to recover childcare costs at 70% of the cost – up to £175 a week for one child, or £300 for two or more children. Childcare costs have been spiralling, especially in south-east England, and are viewed as the most expensive in Europe. In a sign of the measure’s political importance to both wings of the coalition, Nick Clegg and Duncan Smith announced the extra £300m together. Both parties have been struck by polling showing they are fast losing support among low-income working women, a tranche of the population that helped Cameron to power. Polling by Ipsos Mori, for the Resolution Foundation, shows the Tory rating with female C2 voters has fallen by seven points since the election. The Lib Demeral Democrats had a 14-point drop among the same group. Clegg said: “This will help an extra 80,000 families who have previously had no help at all with childcare costs. We all know how difficult it is sometimes to juggle family and work but this is really good news, especially for lone parents and mums up and down the country. Duncan Smith said: “I want to see far more than 80,000 benefit. Because at the moment for many parents it’s just not worth working less than 16 hours, so I see the 80,000 very much as a starting point. “Under this new model, payment will be calculated by months, not weeks, so that when the rush of the school holidays descend, these higher-cost weeks are balanced by the lower cost of others. It’s about having a system that works for the people that use it, not those designing it.” Clegg and Duncan Smith have been lobbied intensively through the summer by groups including Save the Children, the Daycare Trust, and the Resolution Foundation, which have been urging the pair to acknowledge that they would have to pump more money into childcare to expand its availability to those working 16 hours or less. If no extra cash had been found, Clegg and Duncan Smith would have been forced to cut the cap of weekly cash. Ministers were considering either allowing parents to claim 70% of their childcare costs, only up to £125 for one child and £210 for two or more children; or of claiming 80% of costs, up to £100 for one child or £150 for two or more children. Vidhya Alakeson, director of Research at the Resolution Foundation, said: “The good news is that more parents working part-time will be eligible for support, and others already receiving it won’t face further cuts. The bad news is the misguided cuts made in April – which lost half a million working parents around £450 each – haven’t been reversed.” The shadow work and pension secretary, Liam Byrne, said: “The new money will simply plug a black hole in childcare funding which emerges in two years’ time when eligibility for childcare is widened. “Today’s funding does nothing to make up for the new parents’ penalty introduced over the last year.” Childcare Children Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Just when you thought politics couldn’t get any zanier, Florida state Rep. Ritch Workman enters stage right. The Republican legislator, who is on a self-pronounced “quest to seek and destroy unnecessary burdens on the freedom and liberties of people” is looking to legalize “dwarf tossing” in the state—all in…
Continue reading …Moderate Muslim leaders who joined New York City’s fight against terrorism were placed under surveillance by the NYPD because of their religion, the AP finds after reviewing secret documents it obtained. Reda Shata, an imam who decried terrorism, invited the FBI and NYPD to speak at his mosque, and even…
Continue reading …One of the two judges who oversaw the Amanda Knox appeal has spoken out, and his comments are hardly a resounding confirmation of her innocence. In remarks the Telegraph describes as “surprisingly frank,” Claudio Pratillo Hellmann said in a TV interview yesterday that Knox and then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito “maybe know”…
Continue reading …