Tesla shareholders filed lawsuit against Elon Musk
A group of shareholders of the American company that manufactures Tesla electric cars, filed a lawsuit against its founder, Elon Musk. On 10 August of this year, a court in San Francisco admitted a class action lawsuit for consideration.
Just a few days earlier, on 7 August, Elon Musk published several messages on Twitter about the possible withdrawal of the company from the stock exchange.
“Statements published by Mask on securing financing were of great importance and caused a significant number of actions in the market”, one of the company’s shareholders told Bloomberg.
According to him, the founder of Tesla provided the market with “false and misleading” information, due to which sellers speculating for a fall in price (short sellers) were forced to cover their positions by buying shares at high prices.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission is checking Mr. Musk's message on possible withdrawal of the company from the stock exchange if the price reaches
USD 420 per share.
RF authorities paid multi-million compensation to Alexei Navalny
Alexei Navalny, a member of the opposition, received more than RUB 4 million from the Russian government as compensation under the case of Yves Rocher.
The European Court of Human Rights considered the clam filed by Alexei Navalny and his brother Oleg in 2015 and awarded them EUR 80,000. The ECHR awarded the compensation for the absence of a fair court proceeding and the punishment, which was applied not under the law.
At the same time, the verdict passed by the Supreme Court of Russia ruling remained in force: a three and a half year suspended sentence for Alexei Navalny and the same number of years in a penal facility for Oleg.
The criminal prosecution against the brothers was related to multi-million theft from “Yves Rocher East” and the multidisciplinary processor company, allegedly committed by the Navalny brothers.
A bank may not accrue interest on a loan after default event
Transfer of security assets on account of debt liabilities repayment changes the manner of fulfillment of obligations and the start of calculation of the limitation period.
The Supreme Court drew such a conclusion in a dispute between a bank and its client on debt collection under the loan and pledge agreement. In particular, the defendant filed a petition on limitation period application, as the bank appealed to the court after expiration of the latter. In its turn, the bank stood to the fact that since the obligation to repay the loan in installments (in monthly installments) was set in the terms of the agreement, then the limitation period for each next payment starts from the moment of violation of the repayment period.
The Supreme Court, when rejecting the appellant's arguments, pointed out that due to the transfer of the secured asset to the bank and its sale for repayment of loan liabilities, the method for fulfilling the obligation has changed, and the 5-year limitation period established in the agreement should be calculated from the moment of the default event.
Paul Manafort found guilty on eight counts
President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has been found guilty on eight counts. Such a decision was taken by the jury during the trial held in Alexandria, Virginia. Five out of eight charges are related to tax evasion, one concerns failure to declare foreign bank accounts, as required by the law. Two more counts are related to bank fraud. Regarding the other 10 counts, on which the jury failed to reach consensus, the judge declared a mistrial. Manafort was accused on 18 counts.
The trial by a jury, which consisted of six women and six men, took four days to declare a verdict.
After Mr. Manafort was found guilty, the Designation and Sentence Computation Center of the Bureau of Prisons should calculate the term for serving punishment. At a special court hearing, prosecutors and the defense team will express their opinions on this matter, but the judge will decide independently. Moreover, in September, hearings on the case of Paul Manafort’s lobbying activities will start in Washington. He was a political strategist, and worked for the authorities of Ukraine, and did not register as a foreign agent.
Ukraine filed complaint against WTO decision taken in favor of Russia
On 23 August Ukraine filed an appeal against the decision of the World Trade Organization (WTO) taken in a dispute with Russia on anti-dumping measures applied to ammonium nitrate (DS493). The appellate body of the organization should rule on this case within 3 months.
A reminder that in 2008 Ukraine imposed anti-dumping duties on Russian ammonium nitrate at the level of 11.91% for five years for all enterprises, except for Dorogobuzh and EuroChem, for which these were set at the level of 9.76% and 10.78%, respectively. In 2010, EuroChem obtained a cancellation of the duty through court actions. In July 2014, as part of interim review of anti-dumping duties applied to ammonium nitrate of Russian origin, Ukraine increased their amount threefold — from 11.91% to 36.03% — and extended their duration by another five years. For Dorogobuzh, the duty increased from 9.76% to 20.51%, for EuroChem, the duty was set at the same level as for other Russian manufacturers — 36.03% (previously it was 10.78%).
In July of this year, WTO partially upheld Russia's demands in a case on ammonium nitrate export to Ukraine. The organization found that Ukraine did not comply with requirements regarding anti-dumping measures application to the EuroChem Group of Companies.
Later, the organization took another decision in a dispute with the Russian Federation not in favor of Ukraine. The WTO did not uphold the complaint filed by Ukraine regarding unreasonable restrictions of railway goods export to Russia.