Rossiyaning STRATEGIYASI YuKOS hakamlik kvant TO sezilarli javob qaytarmaslikni
Tribunalni yordam berish maqsadida Yukos neft kompaniyasining bir to'g'ri baholash erishish, Abiturient ilgari surilgan 13 possible scenarios. The claims ranged from USD 30 AQSh dollariga milliardlab 114 billions (Final Award, uchun. 1701 - 1710) and the three main sets of scenarios were the following:
- YuKOS qarshi soliq baholash va ahd buzilishi edi
- muvaffaqiyatsizlikka Sibneft birlashishi - ahd buzilishi Yukos sabab,
- Yukos bor edi, bir 70% NYSE sanab olinish imkoniyat
- soliq baholash va ahd buzilishi emas edi, lekin baholash keyingi tartibot buzilishi edi.
- baholash ijrosini qaramay, Yukos USD to'lash uchun vaqt ma'lum bir miqdorda berilgan bo'lar edi 24 billion (because of the considerable amount it represents).
Claimants’ expert reached a synthesised Enterprise value by weighing three different valuation methods (DCF 50%, taqqoslama kompaniyalari 40% va solishtirish operatsiyalar 10% (Final Award, uchun. 1717)) and proposed that the valuation date for Yukos should be the highest of either the November 2007 date (when Yukos was struck off the register) or the date of the award (which the Tribunal deems to be 30 iyun 2014).
Abiturient ikkala baholash sanalar da Yukos shaxsning qiymatini hisoblab, olingan emas, faraziy dividendlar qo'shimcha 2004 uchun 2007, the lost chance of being listed in the NYSE and-pre award interest on the dividends from the valuation date to the date of the Award (LIBOR + 4%) (Final Award, uchun. 1722 - 1724).
It should be noted that Claimants’ experts most likely did not disclose full soft copies of their models in the proceedings as the Tribunal expressed difficulties in following Claimants’ methodology and stated that it had to infer it from the appendices to the expert’s second report (Final Award, uchun. 1728). According to Mr. McClay of BDO (London), u bir partiya Tribunal uning uslubiyati barcha amallarni tushunadi ishonch hosil qilish uchun yumshoq nusxalarini ochib shuningdek aniqlash uchun muhim ahamiyatga ega, jumladan, me'moriy muammolari, taxmin kelishmovchilik va tutarsızlıklar, kiritish xatolar va model umumiy ishlari yo'qmi.
Javobgar strategiyasi kvant ijobiy ishni taqdim emas
Respondent’s approach was far more simplistic, barcha da zarar ijobiy ishni oldinga qo'yish bermadi, deb, but rather chose to point out errors and attack Claimants’ expert’s valuation (Final Award, para.1783). Masalan, Respondent disagreed with Claimants regarding the valuation date but did not set out an alternative date (although it suggested that it should be before the end of 2004 at the Hearing (Final Award, para.1738)). This was a dangerous strategy to adopt, as it is always possible to chip away at damages should an opposing party win.
Javobgar ekspertlari abiturient "hisob-kitoblar", deb aytibxatolar bilan riddled” (Final Award, uchun. 1743, 1744) and corrected Claimants’ Comparable Companies valuation by excluding data with regard to Rosneft, Gazprom Neft va tahlil xalqaro yirik neft kompaniyalari bir Enterprise qiymatini erishish uchun 2007 USD 32 billions lower than Claimants’ Enterprise value (Final Award, uchun. 1746). Respondent also disputed the reliability of the Comparable Companies and claimed that Comparable Transactions were indefensible from an economic perspective (Final Award, uchun. 1747) but never brought forward a methodology for valuating Yukos or any valuation figures of its own.
Janob. McClay of BDO (London) is of the opinion that the phrase “xatolar bilan riddled” is becoming a stock phrase in respondents’ expert reports and perhaps even part of a report template of some experts. Bu yerga, Claimants’ first expert report was indeed flawed; the valuation of YNG (Yukos’ main production subsidiary sold in a forced auction to Baikal, a fake entity bought by the State-owned Rosneft shortly after) contained obvious and significant errors which Respondent pointed out. Claimants’ expert then admitted to his mistakes but compensated for them in his second expert report by inflating other numbers to reach the same final amount claimed (Final Award, uchun. 1744, 1745). Bu Tribunal qayd sifatida da'vogar "ekspert xatolar uning obro'sini putur etkazdi va Tribunal unga bo'lgan ishonchi yo'qoladi olib mumkin, uning"Abiturient "zarar uning belgilash Tribunaliga cheklangan yordam” was a factor to consider when fixing the costs of Claimants (Final Award, uchun. 1884).
nuqtai strategik nazaridan, ko'pincha bir javobgar da'vogarning kvant ishonish berish emas, balki maqsadida hisob bermaydi deb shundaydir. Oxirida, javobgar baholash bo'yicha da'vo olib yukini yo'q va ancha qiyin tribunal ishini qilish uchun qaror mumkin. ammo, yon asossiz deb abiturient "da'volarni bilan lavozimidan ozod etishga tribunalni kutish va hatto kvant e'tiborga olmaydi qachon javobgar ko'pincha mushkul ahvolga duch. Bu mutaxassislar xarajatlar sarflamagan qiymat bo'ladi, including hearings when it might turn out useless?
kvant ijobiy ishni olib bo'lmaydi ba'zan backfire mumkin. What is the Tribunal to do when there is even partial acceptance of the claimant’s quantum but nothing from the other side? This approach can sometimes lead to dangerous consequences as it makes it difficult for the Tribunal to adopt only part of the respondent’s case and the Tribunal has only one party’s valuation to base its award on.
Shunday bo'lsa-da, YuKOS yilda, Javobgar Ekspertlar sezilarli abiturient "Ekspertlar hisob-kitoblarga ba'zi juda katta xatolar ishora tomonidan da'vo qiymatini kamaytirish muvaffaq. shu sababli, some of Respondent’s criticism of Claimants’ experts (the “corrected” version of Claimants’ Comparable Companies analysis and the adjustments to the principle errors) was useful to the Tribunal. "Og'zaki nima ilgari - Tribunal javobgar Ekspertlar keladi», deb topildibo'lishi mumkin"A"foydali"Baholash - a da" tuzatilgan "korxonasi qiymati AQSh dollari miqdorida 67.862 milliard va, faraz bir 90/10 xolislik / qarz kapitali tuzilmasi, sifatida kapitalidagi qiymati 21 noyabr 2007 AQSh dollari 61 billions’ (Final Award, uchun. 1783).
M ko'ra. MacGregor of BDO (London), mutaxassislar uchrashuv mutaxassislar o'rtasida katta halokatgoh inobatga bu holatda foydali bo'lar edi. It is likely that the technical valuation issues could have been resolved (or at least clarified) by a meeting and, given the costs of the experts (USD 8.5 Abiturient va AQSh dollari uchun millionlab 4.5 millions for Respondent), munozaralar, shubhasiz, iqtisodiy faol qilingan edi.
ekspertlar uchrashuvlar qo'llab-quvvatlash katta argument deb, yo'l hisobga Tribunal mutaxassislari tomonidan taqdim etilgan dalillarni ishlatiladi, u ularning to'liq olingan deb emas, uning qarori kelishidan oldin baholash haqida fikr xabar.
bir partiya kerak-da, darajada imkon ekanligini, narigi ning mutaxassislari bilan shug'ullanish, u bir partiya kvant bo'yicha ishni taqdim emas qaerda mutaxassislar har qanday umumiy arbobi bo'yicha kelisha ega bo'ladi, deb umid qilish aniq bo'ladi, ishi strategik maqsadlar uchun bu erda bo'lib.
- Olivier Marquais, sherik kishi, Aceris MChJ