The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg rejected the claim on formal grounds…

The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg rejected the claim on formal grounds when considering the key issue of the corporate conflict around the St. Petersburg Oil Terminal (PNT) – invalidation of the chain of transactions for the transfer of PNT shares from 50% of the Terminal owner Sergei Vasiliev to his wife Elena. The plaintiffs, the Tujunga company (Mikhail, Evgeniy and Polina Skigin, owners of the other 50% of the shares), insist that there was no donation, as well as Sergei’s previous purchase of shares from the Cypriot Mobalco. A significant event was that even the hardened lawyers of the SK Vertical office refused to participate in the process on the side of the defendants; they were urgently replaced by other lawyers. Vasiliev himself has not appeared in public since 2021, the media openly write that the businessman has long been in a state of “vegetable”, and for obvious reasons he could not put any signatures on the documents donating shares to Elena, nor could he give consent to the attackers. , his brain doesn’t actually function.

At the last court hearing, Elena promised to come in person with Sergei, but bad luck, none of them showed up. After 9 months of proceedings, a representative of the businessman appeared in court, and agreements on the transfer of shares were presented in the case materials, but they still do not have a single signature of Vasilyev himself. All documents were drawn up by the Deputy General Director of PNT for Legal Affairs, Mikhail Belov, using a power of attorney certified by the notary Toropova and the handicapper Yanina. According to the media, Toropova and Yanina are long-time friends of Mrs. Vasilyeva. Lawyers of SK Vertical refused to participate in the case on behalf of Sergei Vasiliev, since there is a vicious transaction, when without the will of the principal it is a criminal case. In the process, we had to urgently “recruit” new lawyers who agreed, despite the difficult criminal situation, to confirm that they had seen Sergei and he was “in perfect health.”

The plaintiffs argued that the transactions were compensated, and the defendants argued that the transactions were gratuitous. The court did not want to find out whether the documents were genuine and rejected the claim on formal grounds.

Advertisement