Saturday, February 19, 2022

Ukraine Opposes Tatneft with Troops on Border Cited in SDNY Mediation Inner City Press Here

 

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 17 –  Ukraine, fending off troops on its borders and separately an arbitral award to Tatneft, cited both in arguments before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on February 17. Inner City Press live tweeted it (more on Patreon here), thread here:

now Ukraine v. PAO Tatneft, in which Ukraine is opposing discovery requests by citing troops on its border. SDNY judge says, I understand, but... Ukraine's lawyer Maria Kostytska: There is no justification for these 52 subpoenas from Tatneft. There are troops on Ukraine's border.

Judge: I understand that. But I am concerned with efficiencies in these two litigations. Ukraine wants a protective order entered - not (just) to protect it militarily, but hear to keep documents in the case secret, from the Press and public. Inner City Press may after research oppose this - this week we won some unsealing, here

Tatneft's lawyer: Ukraine wants to delay. We have subpoena-ed financial institutions. [From docket, involved: #BankOfAmerica,  #WellsFargo, #MorganStanley, #Santander, #CIBC, #CreditAgricole & #GoldmanSachs (which we're covering #EDNY: US v. Ng.

Ukraine: There are discovery proceedings in four Federal courts, in NY and DC. [So what's the 4th?] We are speaking on behalf of the highest levels of Ukraine's government. The Prime Minister is considering this. There is a mediation upcoming.

Ukraine's lawyer: We are not delaying. We are exercising our recourse against an award based on illegal share purchase using promissory notes. We have not waived this due to estoppel. We have not provided on appeal. So we seek certiorari

Tatneft's lawyer: The discovery could be avoided if Ukraine would secure the judgment. The arbitral award is what it is. We are entitled to pursue discovery without further delay. Judge: Maybe Ms. Kostytska tomorrow will have more info from her client [Ukraine]

 Judge: So this is how we're going to proceed -- Ukraine's lawyer: We want to add an additional suggestion, we want reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3, your clear error.

Digging into the docket, we find a declaration by Ukraine citing the US State Department on an "invasion force of 175,000."

   More on Patreon here.

This case is Ukraine v. PAO Tatneft, 21-mc-376 (Koeltl / Netburn)

***

@SDNYLIVE courthouse #CourtCastCast
                              200 Worth Street
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.