Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/27/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 02, 2004

According to a press release dated October 25, 2006, a federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed an investor lawsuit against Yukos Oil Co. that alleged the Russian company concealed from the investing public the potential risk from its tax strategies and from the political activities of its top executive. In an opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III in Manhattan dismissed the investor lawsuit against Yukos, once Russia's largest oil company. In March, the judge allowed the claims over its tax strategies to proceed, but dismissed the other allegations.

In a press release dated April 3, 2006, a lawsuit filed in the United States accusing Russian oil major Yukos of violating securities laws by evading taxes was partly dismissed last week by a federal judge in New York, although several aspects of the lawsuit were allowed to proceed. Judge William Pauley dismissed claims brought against Group Menatep, the parent company of Yukos, by plaintiffs Roxwell Holdings Ltd. and Parsimony Ltd. However, he allowed claims against Yukos and the company's former chief financial officer, to proceed.

The original complaint charges Yukos, certain of its officers and directors and its accounting advisors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yukos is one of Russia's leading vertically-integrated oil companies, and one of the world's largest non-state owned oil companies.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants created a complex network of shell companies to evade taxes on the production, refining and sale of oil and oil products. These shell companies were registered in territories with preferential tax treatment to enable these companies to receive special tax exemptions in order to minimize Yukos' tax liability. Since these shell companies were not separate legal entities, as Yukos maintained control over the operations of these companies, Yukos was required to recognize the full amount of the receipts associated with these transactions for its own tax purposes and was not entitled to the preferential tax treatment these shell companies were granted. Accordingly, Yukos' tax liability was materially understated and its earnings were materially overstated in violation of GAAP.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel in October 2003 when the market learned that Russian authorities had arrested the Company's largest shareholder and CEO, defendant Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and had charged him with fraud, embezzlement and evading taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars that was owed to the government. At this time, the Russian authorities also announced that they would pursue criminal prosecutions against other senior Yukos officials. Ultimately, Yukos, which has been audited by the Tax Ministry of Russia for its fiscal year 2000 tax returns, will be required to pay approximately $3.3 billion for 2000 alone due to its understatement of its tax liability, including interest and penalties. The Tax Ministry intends to audit Yukos' books for 2001-2003 based upon the same charges. Yukos could ultimately be expected to pay upwards of $10 billion to the Tax Ministry for defendants' involvement in the illegal tax evasion scheme. As a result of the revelation of defendants' wrongdoing, investors have suffered massive damages as the price of Yukos' securities plummeted.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas Operations
Headquarters: Russian

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: YUKOY
Company Market: OTC-BB
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-5243
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley III
DATE FILED: 07/02/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/13/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/25/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  7. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  8. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-5243
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley III
DATE FILED: 03/09/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/22/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/25/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date