- Print This Post Print This Post

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS – Roman Abramovich, Russia’s and England’s richest man, quietly lost a court case in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) last week. But the sound of the judge’s ruling is about to toll right round the world, For the first time in one of the most successful careers in the world of what Karl Marx once called primitive capital accumulation, Abramovich is facing a court order, outside Russia, to explain how he and his oil companies seized control of a Russian oilfield the owner has accused him of stealing.

At stake in court is a group of oilfields in Khanty-Mansiisk known as Priobskoye, worth about $4 billion. The value of the theft, allegedly masterminded by Abramovich two years ago, which the court has said it will now adjudicate, is about $2 billion.

Before the court will rule on the evidence, however, and most embarrassing and serious for Abramovich personally, he has been ordered to reveal where he has hidden the proceeds – along with every asset he owns worth more than $1 million.

Until now, Abramovich has been able to evade all claims of fraud and other illegalities alleged against
Millhouse, his UK-based asset holding company, Sibneft, the oil company that serves as his principal cash cow, or the myriad of associated companies registered in tax havens across the globe. Abramovich’s spokesman John Mann publicly claimed this month, in a remark to an English newspaper, that “any attempt to drag Mr. Abramovich into litigation would be misguided, since he is not on Sibneft’s board and had no role in its dealings with Sibir.”

Sibir Energy Pic, an oil producer listed on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London, has already filed charges of massive fraud against the Abramovich group in Russian courts. These are proceeding, although Abramovich has been winning on his home ground. Sibir’s financial statement for 2004 indicates that, minus the benefit of the Priobskoye oilfield, it had revenues of ” about $320 million, earning a pre-tax profit of about $40 million.

Sibir is principally owned by Chalva Tschigirinsky, a Moscow entrepreneur. The Priobskoye oilfield is a vital asset in a partnership which Tschigirinsky has with the Mosdcow city government and the Moscow oil refinery to create a vertically integrated structure supplying the city with petroleum products refined from its own crude oil. Sibir is accusing Abramovich and his companies of fraudulently diluting, and converting its 50% stake in Priobskoye asset to less than 1%.

In August 2002, in a fierce battle between Abramovich, D Tschigirinsky and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, Abramovich’s Sibneft tried, but failed to take control of the refinery. For a time Sibneft cut off part of its crude oil supply to the refinery. Abramovich has personally made no secret that his subsequent takeover of Sibir’s stake in Priovskoye was, as he personally told Luzhkov, was retaliation for losing the refinery battle.

The High Court of the British Virgin Islands has taken jurisdiction over Sibir’s claim against the Russian oligarch, because, in his effort to spirit the asset out of Russian control, Abramovich used several BVI companies he secretly controls. They are listed in the court order as Gregory Trading, Richard Enterprises, Shaw Invest & Finance, and Carroll Trading. All are said to be located at the same address: Trident Chambers, Wickhams Cay, Road Town in Tortola. The court order has appointed an independent receiver to take over the shares of three of the BVI companies that are a part of the fraud claim. The other companies, including entities registered in Cyprus and Panama, as well as Abramovich himself, have been ordered not to make any move to shift the shares outside the BVI court’s jurisdiction, or the control of the companies that presently hold them. The proceeds from oil sales currently under way from the oilfield have also been frozen in place.

Details of Sibir’s claim in the BVI court, and Abramovich’s lawyers reply are still under court seal. What has already been publicly disclosed by both sides is that Sibir and Sibneft were equal stakeholders in a joint venture called Sibneft Yugra to develop the Priobskoye area. Sibneft was to fund the development, and Sibir and its Russian operating company Yugraneft, were to repay Sibneft, and then share the proceeds of oil sales equally. However, according to Sibir, Abramovich, his associate David Davidovich, and their subordinates secretly converted Sibir’s and Yugraneft’s stakes into holdings of the BVI companies and others, for Abramovich’s benefit.

Speaking for Abramovich, Mann has claimed that “everything that Sibir has done related to Sibneft Yugra has been within the framework of a set of agreements between our shareholders and their shareholders.” Sibir’s CEO Henry Cameron is reported in a Moscow newspaper as saying this is “all nonsense. We would like them to disclose to us what those agreements are.”

In order to rule on Abramovich’s defence, Judge Charles has ordered the Abramovich companies to produce these agreements in court. The court order also instructs the companies to reveal “when, from whom and for what consideration it acquired the interest in the share capital of Sibneft-Yugra presently registered in its name”. In addition, the companies have also been ordered to hand over their banking details. Although Sibneft makes its financial accounts public, the others are not. If forced to comply with the BVI court, the elaborate system through which Abramovich directs billions of dollars of oil revenues will be exposed for the first time. The evidence may then be used by UK authorities in London to investigate whether the money-laundering statutes have been violated by Abramovich’s high-profile spending in Britain. “We have not acted in any way illegally,” Mann has also claimed in a London newspaper interview. “All the court cases so far have confirmed that.” He was referring to the courts of the Khanty-Mansiisk region and the Moscow Arbitration Court. The decisions, which have gone both ways, are still pending on appeal.

In her ruling on Sibir’s claim No. 174/05, issued last Wednesday, and obtained from the court record in Tortola late Friday, Judge Indra Charles requires Abramovich to file an affidavit “stating the value, location and details of all his assets exceeding US$1 million in value wheresoever situated and whether in…his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets.” The judge has set a deadline of July 22 to comply. If he fails, Abramovich and his companies face serious contempt of court claims, which can be enforced in England.

According to the court order in BVI, Abramovich has two personal UK addresses: Flat 2, 39 Lowndes Square, London SW1, and the Fyning Hill Estate, Rogate, Petersfield, Hampshire. The judge has given Abramovich until July 22 to hand over the information, or face contempt of court penalties. The safe haven Abramovich apparently thought he was acquiring from the long hand of Russian law turns out to be vulnerably to legal action in the British legal system.

The Sibir charge that Abramovich is a fraudster is not the first of its kind against Abramovich. In September 2003, Abramovich had been behind a transaction in which a company he secretly controlled sold a gold deposit called Maiskoye to Highland Gold, a London goldminer also controlled by men close to Abramovich, on terms that had been financially sweetened by the Chukotka regional administration, which Abramovich headed as governor. At the time, Abramovich’s spokesman Mann claimed that the seller of Maiskoye “is not connected in any way whatsoever with Abramovich”. Subsequent admissions by executives of Highland Gold revealed that Abramovich was the seller of Maiskoye. Russian and UK officials reportedly examined the charges in 2004, but took no action.

- Print This Post Print This Post

By John Helmer

Richard Cheney, the outgoing vice-president of the United States, is the modern version of Mime, second in command of the Niebelungs, the bad dwarfs of the mythical German underworld. It was Mime who forges a magical helmet to give his brother Alberich, the chief dwarf Niebelung, the power to change into anything he desires.

You don’t have to subscribe to pagan witchcraft; be a fan of Adolph Hitler; or enjoy Richard Wagner’s Ring cycle of operas, to know how badly the Niebelungs turn out, their thievery and thuggery bringing on the fiery destruction of themselves, and the gods who patronize them. But that’s only on stage. Having launched two wars the US is now losing in Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney intends to launch the third, and most destructive of all, the war against Iran. To divert Americans from opposing this folly, Cheney is now denouncing Russia for the very disruption of global oil supply which Cheney and his Israeli friends intend to unleash themselves – in less than a year’s time.
(more…)

- Print This Post Print This Post

By John Helmer in Moscow

The English comedian, and co-founder of the Goons, Spike Milligan, once said that Americans are the new Germans.

He wasn’t exactly joking, but he was being selective. Not every American, he meant, was susceptible to the type of fascism that everyone who has ever been jack-booted by the Germans recognizes. But all too many are, the English jokester thought.

In these days of Russia’s remembrance of the 60-year old victory over Hitler’s Germans, there is one American who, if not cognizant of Milligan’s warning, might have been sensitive to current perceptions in Russia. But Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, who visited Moscow ahead of President George Bush’s attendance at the Victory Day ceremony, was having trouble with the difference between “da” and “nyet” in one of her interviews. It’s unsurprising, therefore, that she mightn’t be able to hear that what she was saying sounded to Russian ears not at all unlike what Hitler had thought best for Russia, before he was driven back into his bunker.
(more…)

- Print This Post Print This Post

MOSCOW (Mineweb.com) – For at least a few hours on Monday, Harmony Gold’s Bernard Swanepoel knew more about Norilsk Nickel’s plan to spin off its gold assets in an offshore placement than Norilsk Nickel itself.

“Harmony wishes to advise”, a company announcement declared in Johannesburg, “that it has consented to the transfer by Norilsk Nickel of all its snares in the issued share capital of Gold Fields to an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Norilsk (“Subco”) and to cede all its rights and delegate all its obligations in terms of Norilsk’s irrevocable undertaking to Subco.”

In Moscow, the spokesman for Norilsk Nickel told Mineweb she didn’t know anything about Subco. Neither did the spokesman for Polyus,Norilsk Nickel’s principal gold-mining unit, although he admitted he had just seen Harmony’s announcement.

According to Harmony’s version of the correspondence it has just received from Norilsk Nickel, “the transfer by Norilsk of its Gold Fields shares to Subco is in accordance with its strategy to consolidate all of its gold assets into one vehicle and does not have any impact on the obligators under the irrevocable undertaking.”

Exactly who has authority to speak for Norilsk Nickel n such binding terms, and to plan what to do next, has been unclear since January, when Vladimir Potanin and Mikhail Prokhorov, the co-owners of Norilsk Nickel, decided to fire Leonid Rozhetskin, their principal strategist for the C oldfields deal. Since then Rozhetskin has been unable or unwilling to return to Moscow, where awkward questions from state investigators probing other dea s await him. An associate told Mineweb that he believes Rozhetskin is comfolable abroad with a well-known Italian partner, and that currently, he is talking with Merrill Lynch about the future of what is now called Subco. According to documents that surfaced in a New York court late last year, the spin-off gold company was first codenamed I for “new international goldco” by RozHetskin and his advisors at HSBC. According to HSBC’s presentation of “Project Golf, if Harmony Gold and Norilsk Nickel succeeded in their takeover of Gold Fields, “I” was to be created out of the international gold assets of all thiiee companies, and “listed as a new ‘major’ in North America attracting premium valuation.”

Potanin and Prokhorov have refused all opportunities to speak, or requests to answer questions in public, about the Gold Fields acquisition, or their “1” plan. Notwithstanding, Potanin has told Gold Fields CEiO Ian Cockerill that Rozhetskin continues to have his authority to negotiate on the fate of the 20-percent shareholding, and the last stages of Swanepuel’s ill-fated bid. Gold Fields’s management, and other major stakeholders in Harmony, expect the bid to expire on May 20. In the meantime, is the disclosure of Subco by Swanepoel a last-ditch move to expose Potanin and Prokhorov ttji the commitment they once made to the takeover?

For one Moscow investment banker, who has been at different times close to all sides and a consistent backer of the “I” strategy, Subco was a surprise name for no surprise at all. “As far as I know,” he told Mineweb, Norilsk Nickel “can do what they like with their holding of gold asset.” If he were advising Norilsk Nickel at the moment, and he says he is no:, he would advise the company not to sell the Gold Fields stake, “There is ncl pressure to sell now. I know of no [government] pressure to sell.”

Late on Monday afternoon, Norilsk Nickel issued u press release citing Prokhorov for the announcement that it intends to create a new gold asset company, and then sell its shares abroad. “At its meeting on April 15th, 2005,” the fresh announcement reads, “the Board of Directors: of MMC Norilsk Nickel (“Company”) resolved to initiate steps which should leatjl to the demerger of the Company’s Russian gold assets consolidated under |ZAO “POLUS” and its subsidiaries (“Polyus”) and the Company’s 20% interest in Gold Fields Limited (the “Transaction”).

The contemplated Transaction, if implemented, shoLId create a new large independent gold major (Newco) with the potential for substantial organic growth and a window into one of the world’s most prospective gold regions: Russia. The Transaction, if implemented, would, in the (opinion of the directors, provide investors with direct exposure to this unique Investment, and should allow Newco to realize its inherent growth options, enhance gold business’s direct access to the financing opportunities and unlock substantial value for all Company’s shareholders.”

“The initial step in the Transaction will be to consolidate! all the Company’s gold assets (including its 20% interest in Gold Fields Limited) under Polyus.lt is the intention of the Board of MMC Norilsk Nickel that tsewco would seek both domestic and international listings as soon as practicable, following the Transaction.”

Prokhorov is cited in the announcement as saying “we.; see the demerger as a means to unlock substantial value for all Norilsk shareholders and to create a platform to build a new global gold major centred around existing gold assets.” Deutsche Bank is listed as financial advisor for the new scheme, and its legality assigned to Debevoise & Plimpton.

For investment bankers and lawyers, there can never be a political obstacle so high that it cannot be climbed to sustain their clients’ willingness to pay lucrative placement and arranging fees in the hope of seeing their cash safely out of Russia.

And so, when Brian Gilbertson, CEO of SUAL International, the Moscow-based resource company, announced last week that the Kremlin will not allow the large-scale sale of SUAL shares abroad, a Moscow resource banker claimed Gilbertson was talking his book, not telling the truth. SUAL is not ready for a placement, the banker told Mineweb. Gilbertson was passing the buck to the political leadership, he claimed.

The banker also claimed that his institution has three mandates from Russian resource companies on the go at present, and that none of them has been blocked by Kremlin fiat. Accordingly, he was emphatic that Norilsk Nickel’s owners are free to plan to move their gold assets offshore to “I” or Subco or Newco. Naturally, the banker didn’t concede that his firm’s access to know the Kremlin’s mind has been limited recently; especially since a share-buying scheme of a closed company the Kremlin is trying to eform was discovered to have been one of his bank’s inventions, and to have led to an investigation of its legality.

But is there a contradiction between what Gilbertson iiaid is impermissible, and what Potanin, Prokhorov, deutsche Bank and Debevoise & Plimpton would like to get away with?

In remarks to the Russian Economic Forum in London April 11, Gilbertson is reported to have said that Kremlin policy currently prohibits large-scale share listings or initial public offerings for Russian resource companies. He also acknowledged with apparent approval legislative and regulatory provisions in Chile, Brazil, and South Africa to assure state control of resource companies like his own, SUAL, Gilbertson assured, “accordingly will develop its strategic opportunities with its feet firmly rooted in the soils of Russia and the CIS.”

Yevgeny Ivanov, CEO of Polyus and the principal strategist of Norilsk Nickel’s gold strategy, followed Gilbertson at the same conference. But his remarks suggested that there are wings to his feet.

In response to questions about offshore listing plans, Ivanov said that he and his colleagues are considering listing in either Toronto or New York, or buying a company already listed there. Norilsk Nickel already owns the London-listed Norimet, and the New York-listed Stillwater Mining. But for the gold spinoff, Ivanov evidently has in mind something new. He was not asked directly about “I”, but acknowledged that a reverse takeover into Gold Fields was another “theoretical” possibility. At the time, noone had ever heard of Subco or Newco.

A few days earlier, Ivanov had told a Russian audience that these options could not be implemented for another two years. His spokesman told Mineweb that “all decisions could be made not earlier than in 2007.” What exactly must happen in the next two years is unclear. When asked if he favours Kremlin approval or disapprovasl of such an offshore listing plan, Vladimir Litvinenko, President Vladimir Putin’s advisor on resource policy, signaled that he is negative. Local bankers believe that the Newco will require at least a year of technical work to prepare. Two years may be required to overcome the Kremlin objections that are visible now.

Gilbertson’s acknowledgement of a Kremlin bar to IPO’s for major Russian resource companies is the first of its kind. Other Russian executives are sensitive to the requirement for Kremlin approval of their schemes, but they never discuss them openly. Once before, when Norilsk Nickel first announced, a year ago, that it had acquired the Gold Fields stake from Anglo American, it claimed publicly that no Russian government approval was required, and none had been sought. Central Bank action, and Kremlin advice, began to change that position several weeks later. However, it is still not clear what Kremlin officials have demanded, and what Potanin has promised in return.

I, Newco, or Subco are names that have a temporary ring to them. Why Norilsk Nickel’s board did not announce its plan immediately after deciding it last Friday, and waited until after Harmony Gold had disclosed it today, suggests that neither the board, nor the company owners have the confidence that their plan will be anything but temporary also.

- Print This Post Print This Post

MOSCOW (Mineweb.com) –On the eve of Good Friday, President Vladimir Putin called the leaders of Russia’s major businesses to meet with him at the Kremlin. The oligarchs were hoping that Putin would go long on resurrection, and short on crucifixion, at least of the type that has kept their colleague, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison, and destroyed his Yukos oil empire.

At last Thursday’s meeting, Oleg Deripaska, the oligarch who controls Russian Aluminium (Rusal), had his head down as Putin spoke, busy taking notes of the speech Putin was reading from three closely typed pages. Deripaska is the most active of the Russian oligarchs in Africa, with a big bauxite and alumina operation in Guinea, and ambitions to start aluminium smelting plants in Nigeria and the two Congo republics. He has also been trying to gain footholds in India, Venezuela, Jamaica, Australia,Rumania, and Montenegro.

Since the Kremlin issued a full text of the speech immediately, and Deripaska lacks short-hand notetaking among his skills, perhaps he was scribbling to show Putin how attentive he was.

Although Putin made one tentative concession to the assembled oligarchs — to cut the statute of limitations on illegal privatization to three years instead of ten – this can help Deripaska in no way, since he seized his aluminium assets and export revenues, not from the state, but from other Russian businessmen, plant managers, and workers.

“I consider it possible to support the idea of reducing the statute of limitations on privatization deals from 10 years to three,” Putin announced, paying careful attention to the word “possible”.

Putin did not say that he was shortening the statute of limitations on back-tax claims, something of much more urgent concern to most of the oligarchs, especially Deripaska. His Rusal group was identified last September in a report by the Tax Ministry to the cabinet as paying an abnormally low rate of tax on its booming aluminium export business.

This, the report said, was achieved by use of tax minimization schemes, such as tolling, regional tax-offset zones, and transfer pricing. If Putin wants to unleash the tax men, he could deliver a tax bill for Rusal of more than $1 billion per annum for each of the past five years. According to Rusal, in 2004 its aluminium sales, mostly for export, totaled $5.4 billion. Its accumulated debt -an undisclosed figure – stands at over $1.5 billion.

Putin cannot easily change the Civil Code, even if Deripaska wanted him to. Even a concession on privatization violations is of doubtful value legally, because it is not the rigged privatization, in which the Russian government itself was involved a decade ago, that opens up the oligarchs to prosecution. It is their fraud, grand theft, embezzlement, money-laundering, racketeering, forgery, and other crimes, for which the statute of limitations cannot be reduced by a presidential decree.

In the remarks which Deripaska also dutifully copied down, Putin added that “a healthy competitive environment also depends on the appropriate corporate standards and effective self-regulation mechanisms within the business community itself.” That was another warning, less ambiguous than the remark on privatization, that the oligarchs must clean up their acts.

Was this what Deripaska was doing when, a day later, it was announced in Moscow that he had settled claims against him and Rusal by Mikhail Zhivilo of Paris, former owner of the Novokuznetsk Aluminium smelter, which Deripaska seized five years ago?

It was that takeover, and the subsequent conversion of aluminium trading contracts signed between the smelter and the Base Metal Trading and Alucoal group of companies, controlled by Zhivilo, that were the basis of a billion-dollar damage claim in the US federal courts of New York. The subsequent reporting of Deripaska’s record identified him as an alleged racketeer unable to obtain an entry visa for the US. Although the substance of the allegations was never tested in the court, because it refused to accept US jurisdiction, international lenders to the Rusal group have been preoccupied ever since by the risks associated with loans to Deripaska’s offshore companies and the Rusal group in Russia.

Despite the vindication claimed by Rusal from the refusal of the US courts to try the Zhivilo case, and from a parallel rejection of jurisdiction last year by a Stockholm arbitration panel, Deripaska has now agreed to pay Zhivilo between $50 and $60 million, according to a source close to the deal. In the Stockholm arbitration, Zhivilo had sought $325 million in a trading contract claim.

When the US Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s rejection of US jurisdiction over the Zhivilo claims, Alexander Boulygine, Rusal’s CEO and close friend of Deripaska, said publicly: “each new ruling demonstrates there was never any case to begin with. Plainly, the plaintiffs thought that by generating negative publicity and raising our legal costs they could force us to pay them to leave us alone. We refused to be held to ransom.” Michael Burrows, his lead counsel, went further, attacking Zhivilo for making “false claims disguised with sensational allegations and far-fetched tales of intrigue. The plaintiffs sued without evidence or proof.”

Deripaska’s payment to Zhivilo goes a long way toward suggesting otherwise. It is the third major payment in the past 12 months by Deripaska and Rusal to claimants who had gone to court around the world, accusing his companies of contract violations, or worse.

Last year, Rusal was obliged by a Zurich arbitration tribunal and the Swiss high court to pay a $100 million claim from Aldeco, a trading company controlled by Deripaska’s arch-foe in Russia, Anatoly Bykov, the former head of the Krasnoyarsk Aluminium smelter. Deripaska and Rusal have also paid off a group of consultants in the Republic of Guinea, who won a UK High Court judgement against them for $3.5 million.

Rusal refuses to respond to questions about the settlement with the Zhivilo group, or the earlier deals. A spokeswoman noted that, according to a written order issued by ex-Rusal official Yevgenia Harrison, company executives are forbidden from speaking to Mineweb’s correspondent, and will be punished if they do.

Harrison, and her London-based husband Fred Harrison, recently lost their contract to represent Rusal. They were behind a series of attempts to induce editors of aluminium industry publications, notably McGraw-Hill’s Platts newsletter, into publishing only the good news about their group. After receiving a promotional payment from Rusal, Platts recently invited a Rusal executive, Peter Finnimore, to announce that among the “lessons” Rusal has learned in trading aluminium with the rest of the world, a “high level of customer service” and an “increased emphasis on social responsibility” are important, along with “governance”.

Finnimore glossed over the internal argument over Rusal’s public image. Late last year, this had led to a clash between the Harrisons and others in the company’s public relations division, who argued that negative tactics were continuing to damage Rusal, and that a respected international PR firm should be engaged to remedy the problems.

It will not be easy for Rusal to demonstrate it is turning over a new leaf. A claim for more than $300 million by Deripaska’s original offshore partner, David Reuben’s Trans World group of London, remains to be adjudicated in the courts of the British Virgin Islands. There are other conflicts heading for the courts as well.

Again, as with the Zhivilo claim five years ago, the potential damages of the new litigation are not only substantial, financially. If they reveal Deripaska as unrepentant, his business tactics unchanged, and his potential domestic tax liabilities uncertain, they will continue to cast a shadow over Deripaska’s efforts to persuade foreign governments otherwise. This is vital for him in the Ukraine, where Deripaska is dependent on alumina supply from the Nikolaev refinery, whose privatization is already under government review in Kiev; and in Montenegro, where Deripaska’s payment guarantees for a plant takeover were rejected last month.

In Guinea, and elsewhere in western Africa, the competition for bauxite and alumina is heating up with Alcoa, Alcan, Canada’s Global Alumina, Chinese companies, and others. This rivalry is unlikely to be decided by what goes on as Deripaska wages battle in the courthouses of Europe, or at the Kremlin in Moscow. But if he is to hang on in Africa, let alone expand, Deripaska must be able to convince his Guinea, Nigerian and Congolese partners that he can be trusted.

- Print This Post Print This Post

AND the Academy Award for best fascist dictator goes to Adolph Hitler! Woody Allen cracked the joke at the ex- pense of the US habit of making awards out of self-congratulation of the least worthy type. Were anyone to dare in the same spirit, they might award the new US nominee to head the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, the title of worst American to hold such a global post.

But wait a minute. Wolfowitz is hardly American at all, having spent much of his time as a career Washington warmonger under investigation by US counterintelligence and security agencies as an agent for a foreign power — for whose benefit he is suspected of supplying intelligence, cash, weapons and other favours.

In US law books, these may be crimes against the state, possibly espionage, even treason. But not the crimes against humanity which he has encouraged his favourite small state to commit, nor those which he encouraged his addled — if not yet treasonous — president to commit in the first of the great Middle Eeastem wars, which US forces will lose.

For Russia, against whom he has been waging war since he got out of short pants, his nomination as World Bank president presents something of a dilemma — and opportunity. During the first post-Sclviet decade, the bank under James Wolfensohn was one of many tools the US, as the bank’s dominant shareholder, used to destroy the economic: foundations of its rival superpower.

It paid stipends to Russian quislings; obliged the Russian government to incur sizeable debts for the privilege of being advised to dismantle its systems of command and control; and transferred the nation’s most valuable resources into the hands of a dozen individuals eager to betray their country for personal profit.

Not without reason was Wolfensohn’s favourite Russian counterpart Victor Chernomyrdin, the prime minister who enriched him self through creating Russia’s largest company, Gazprom.

Wolfensohn waged war by other means — Chernomyrdin was his collaborator; and the Russian treasury paid in full for its defeat

This arrangement could not last, and when the revival of the feeble Russian state began to challenge the value and terms of the bank’s operations in Russia, Wolfensohn decided to commission an assessment of the effectiveness of the programmes he had promoted in Russia.

He could have engaged Joseph Stiglitz, for four of the preceding years the bank’s chief economist, Nobel Prize winner and former chairman of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

But by the time Russia had grown sceptical of Wolfensohn, and called a halt to new borrowings from him, Stiglitz had become a ferocious critic of everything Wolfensohn had done, or tried to do.

Wolfensohn preferred to hand the assessment job to a minor academic who had enriched himself selling Russians the very adviot Wolfensohn asked him to evaluate. The hungry fox invited to call the roll in the henhouse was US-employed Swede Anders Aslund.

“We don’t necessarily take his advice,” commented Julian Schweitzer, the bank’s Moscow representative at the time, on the appointment

Aslund’s defence of everything Wolfensohn had done in Russia did not , encourage the Kremlin to resume borrowing. Instead, it resolved to pay Wolfensohn off, a task the Russian treasury completed just a few months ago.

From Wolfensohn’s point of view, the evaluation may have helped salve the wounds Stiglitz had inflicted on him and the institution

More practically, it encouraged him to try to evade the Kremlin’s veto on borrowing, and recruit thin Chernomyrdins in the Russian provinces.

These were governors, local warlords and corporate magnates as keen to leverage themselves with the bank as fat Chernomyrdin — and President Boris Yeltsin — had been 10 years before.

With tactics like these, Wolfensohn has hung on for another four years after the Aslund report, but in Moscow he has remained a has-been, the banker no one serious wants to borrow from.

Wolfowitz’s nomination ought to remove any possibility that Russia — now a greater oil power than Wolfensohn or Wolfowitz thought possible — would borrow itself, or recommend that anyone else should

The dilemma posed by the Wolfowitz nomination turns out to be an opportunity for President Vladimir Putin to conclude that, from Russian experience, the bank does more damage than good, and should be isolated and ignored by those countries and economies mos: in need of development financing.

This should not be interpreted as anti-Americanism.
If the Federal Bureau of Investigation were permitted to disdose all it knows, Wotfоwitz may not be the American he claims to be. And with a record like his, it may be a violation of the American statutes to borrow from Wotfowitz.

In US jurisprudence, it is not just immoral to make covenants with war criminals, it is criminal.

- Print This Post Print This Post

Although Russian steelmaking is booming, so too is iron-ore mining. As the only one of Russia’s steel mills without a significant supply of iron-ore of its own, Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Combine, Russia’s largest steelmill, is unhappy to have discovered this week that a domestic rival may take control of most of its iron-ore supply.

In the short history of commercial steelmaking in Russia, grabbing control over raw material supplies –iron-ore or coking coal — has been the shortest route for a raider to take control of the steelmill itself. In December, after the management of Magnitogorsk beat off one hostile takeover bid by the Mechel steel and coal group, and won a rigged privatization of the last state shareholding in the plant,Magnitogorsk had seemed impregnable

This week, Alisher Usmanov, a controversial Moscow entrepreneur, who recently abandoned a raid on Anglo-Dutch steelmaker Corus, announced that he is looking to buy the Sokolovsko-Sarbaysky ore-processing combine (GOK), known as Sokolovka for short. The mine, which is located in Kazakhstan, supplies about 70% of the iron-ore which Magnitogorsk needs annually. In all, Magnitogorsk needs 16 million tons of iron-ore to turn out 10 million tons of steel products per year.

Although Usmanov, who is short of cash, may be bluffing, Magnitogorsk, which has been negotiating itself with Sokolovka before, is not concealing fresh concern. A Moscow press report on Wednesday, claiming that Usmanov’s Gazmetall group is negotiating with Magnitogorsk over the future ownership of Sokolovka has been rebuffed by Magnitogorsk sources as a hostile signal. Still, acknowledging the extent of its dependency in an announcement last week, Magnitogorsk’s CEO, Victor Rashnikov said he will step down from his post in April, and will concentrate on developing new sources of iron-ore and coking coal for the mill.

Six months ago, Rashnikov and his colleagues announced that they were exploring for iron-ore from the Kiryabinskoye deposit in the Bashkirian republic of central Siberia. But rated at just 20 million tons in reserves, this is too small to satisfy the steelmaker’s long-term requirements. According to Rob Edwards, metal analyst for Renaissance Capital in Moscow, “the critical mass needed for Magnitogorsk to develop a greenfield iron-ore mine is 30-40 million tonnes of reserves.” The mill also has a licence for the development of the Techenskoe deposit in the Chelyabinsk region of central Russia, with estimated reserves of 50 million tons. In another two years, Magnitogorsk says it is hoping to produce 2 million tons of iron-ore from this source in order to boost steel a output to 12 million tons in the same period.

This week, a Magnitogorsk source said: “we have heard that Gazmetall has had negotiations with Sokolovka. Knowing the ambitions of Mr. Usmanov I think the meaning of the term negotiations is acquisition.” The source did not say that Usmanov has been negotiating this deal with Magnitogorsk.

Usmanov and his associates now control the Lebedinsky and Mikhailovsky GOKs with a total yearly output of almost 40 million tons, making them the dominant iron-ore producer in Russia; a quarter of that volume is exported. The other major domestic iron-ore mines are each controlled by top-10 Russian steelmakers –Severstal (Karelsky Okatysh, OlenegorskyiGOK); Novolipetsk (Stoilensky GOK); Evraz (Kachkanarsky GOK); and Mechel (Korshunovsky GOK). In all, Russia produces about 100 million tons of iron-ore per year.

Until recently, the steelmakers used their control of the mines to hold prices down, and depress the profitability of the GOKs. But the global shortage of iron-ore has set Russian iron-ore prices free to rise, and as they have done so, they have threatened unprotected mills like Magnitogorsk with serious cost pressure. Usmanov’s group also controls two top-10 steelmills, Oskol and Nosta.

Usmanov and partner Vasily Anisimov, a former aluminium smelter owner, are currently in the process of buying Mikhailovsky GOK from the Metalloinvest group of Boris Ivanishvili. A 29.9-percent stake Ivanishvili owns in the pig-iron producer Tulachermet is also included in the deal. Usmanov and Anisimov have said they will contribute $1 billion in cash, and borrow another $1 billion from a state-controlled Russian bank. Usmanov has disclosed that he has raised about $614 million in recent sales Of his shares in Corns; he is estimated to have bought them for about $295 million.

To fund another major purchase like Sokolovka, Usmanov and Anisimov may view Magnitogorsk as a necessary partner. However, the Magnitogorsk source says the plant is not in favour of joining this bid.

The source implied that, should Usmanov take over Sokolovka, iron-ore prices inside Russia would rise above the level currently offered by Australian and Brazilian exporters to Russia. In that event, the source said, Magnitogorsk is likely to upgrade port facilities it already controls at Vladivostok, in the Russian Fareast, so as to facilitate importation of iron-ore from Australia or elsewhere. “The problem with iron-ore delivery is Russian ports,” the source said. “They are not designed tor the unloading of such cargo. But that problem could be solved if need be. And I think that time will come soon, because if Usmanov will accumulate all iron-ore mine shares, and lift the prices, we will have nothing to do besides searching for alternatives.”

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have been assessing the Russian market for sales for some time, while local steelmakers acknowledge that the cost of rail transportation across Siberia has been a deterrent for as long as local iron-ore prices remaned constrained.

Usmanov confirms through his spokesman that there have been negotiations relating to the iron-ore mine, and that Usmanov is interested in acquisition.” He did not say that Usmanov has discussed the deal with Magnitogorsk.

Alfa-Bank metal analyst Maxim Matveyey said he believes Rashnikov may try to outbid Usmanov for Sokolovka. “While almost all major ferrous metal companies in Russia have ensured their raw materials supplies, Magnitogorsk controls only 10% of its iron ore and entirely lacks its own coM. We estimate that Magnitogorsk currently buys 15% and 10% of its iron ore from Mikhailovsky and Lebedinsky GOKs. Any news about a possible solution to Magnitogorsk’s raw materials problems would be a strong catalyst for the company, but we do not expect such news anv time soon.”

- Print This Post Print This Post

MOSCOW (Mineweb.com) –Two things are known for certain about the conversation President Vladimir Putin had with Sakha region president Vyacheslav Shtirov in the Kremlin, at the end of December.

One is that Shtirov invited Putin to come to the region for fishing. The other is that Putin replied that now is not the time.

Maybe this was nothing but small talk; maybe Putin was thinking meteorologically of the region where the average daily temperature these days is minus-40 Celsius. . But whether there was a symbolic warning for Shtirov in Putin’s remark, no-one knows for sure. But time is certainly beginning to tell, and the clock is not ticking in Shtirov’s favour.

Alrosa, the world’s largest diamond-miner after De Beers, is now undergoing a revolutionary transformation at every level of its operations. This is being directed by the Kremlin, which has ordered federal ministries in Moscow to introduce new methods of supervision and control of the company. Shtirov has been told to stop delaying or obstructing this process with his fish tales. If he does not, he has been warned that Putin may oust him from power altogether.

Yury lonov, a KGB officer, was put in charge many months ago of the company’s legal affairs and cashflow security. Then a federal government appointee, Alexander Nichiporuk, was introduced to management, first as deputy CEO; in November, he was officially promoted to be the chief executive.

Through these two officials, as well as with external auditors and inspectors, the federal authorities have also begun a crackdown on Alrosa’s trading practices and marketing channels. Among the targets, they have aimed at the system of exports through the Sakha regional Committee for Precious Metals and Gemstones; Alrosa’s mining affiliates; and near-bankrupt diamond cutting establishments in Sakha and elsewhere, which Alrosa has kept supplied with diamonds. Preferential allocations of rough diamonds to favoured diamond-buyers, discounts, unrepaid credits, unusual service fees, and offshore banking schemes have all been exposed to federal inspection. If not for the first time, these schemes have been identified as multi-million dollar lossmakers, or worse.

In parallel, the federal authorities have been contemplating their own options to reorganize the unusual shareholding structure at Alrosa. This was created by a secret decree of President Boris Yeltsin in 1993, when he was desperate to secure the favour of regional governors, like Sakha president and Alrosa godfather, Mikhail Nikolaev. This decree, and others Yeltsin issued to award state property in the Sakha region to his satraps, have never been submitted to parliament for enactment, and in their existing form they may be unlawful. Abrogating the Alrosa charter, however, may undermine most of the state property transfers in the Sakha republic, including goldmines, coalmines, and oil prospects.

In its orginal form, Alrosa is a closed shareholding company, whose shares cannot be bought and sold, except between existing shareholders. These were the federal government, with an initial 32-percent bloc; the Sakha government with a similarly sized stake; the districts of the Sakha republic with 8 percent; a military veterans fund with 5 percent; and the balance held by individual company managers and workers.

Although the closed shareholding rule appears to be clear, there has been more than one loophole in the corporate charter, and these have encouraged both speculators and takeover schemers, hoping to capitalize on what they see as Alrosa’s eventual privatization by the state. The first of these schemes to be nipped in the bud was an attempt by a private entrepreneur to buy the 5-percent stake in Alrosa assigned to a military veterans organization. Instead, this shareholding was returned to the federal government, moving its stake up to 37-percent. With that, Shtirov’s place as chairman of Alrosa’s board of directors — technically called the Supervisory Board, since the company lacks a conventional open shareholding structure – was replaced by a federal government official, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin.

Kudrin, however, has been easy for Shtirov to lull into a false sense of security; and to redirect away from the challenges to federal authority which Kudrin had been instructed by the Kremlin to counteract. While Kudrin looked askance, a trade began in Alrosa shares that has substantially cut the stake belonging to workers and managers.

To evade the closed shareholding rule, companies have been created with shares that have been gifted, rather than sold. Once established as shareholders, these companies can then legally buy other Alrosa shares. Through devices like this, for example, Renaissance Capital, a Moscow investment bank, has acquired an estimated 3-percent stake in Alrosa, paying between Rb4,000 to Rb5,000 per share (US$143-$179). Whether the institution was buying for its own account, or on behalf of other investors, is not known.

The Alrosa management is reluctant to discuss what has been happening to its shareholding. One very good reason is that the federal government has decided to accelerate its takeover of the majority stake in the company, and while it has yet to decide how to manage this, one option is to dilute the minorities. Instead of holding a stake estimated to be worth $150 million –assuming Alrosa’s capitalization is calculated at $5 billion — the 3 percent held by Renaissance Capital could thus be worth little more than was paid for it. The remaining workers and managers may find themselves comparably dispossessed, or with a much smaller premium than they had been anticipating. For them, it would thus be preferable that, if anyone is to lose money in the reorganization, it should be Shtirov’s administration and the Sakha regional government.

It was on account of the stakes involved in this process that documents were leaked a few days ago in the Russian press. These indicate some of the options which the federal authorities are currently considering for the reorganization of Alrosa’s shares. Most importantly, they indicate whom the leakers prefer to suffer the value loss, rather than themselves, when the Alrosa shares are surrendered to Moscow. For example, there was r\o reference in the press leak to dilution of the management and workers, or to the free floating shareholders.

Instead, documents were cited that indicate the possibility of converting Sakha regional property to federal government property, and adding to Alrosa’s capital the value of the royalty and rental payments this property can generate. Depending on what estimate is used for Alrosa’s capitalization – they range from $2 billion to $6 billion – this option could generate up to another billion dollars in capital value for the federal government’s share in the company.

A fight over this billion between Sakha and Moscow, between Shtirov and Putin, can be delayed. But there can be no doubt about the outcome. Putin’s recent message to Shtirov was that he has delayed for long enough.

It is also in the interests of the international diamond-mining community that Alrosa’s rustlers are rounded up, and the assets corralled as quickly as possible under federal authority. Once that is done, it will be much simpler for the Kremlin to decide how and when to privatize Alrosa’s shares. That is the payoff that investors like Renaissance Capital, or that miners like De Beers and BHP Billiton have been waiting for.

- Print This Post Print This Post

The greatest dynastic struggle between two queens that is recorded in European history was the rivalry over the throne of the 16th century British empire between Elizabeth I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots, The contest was decided by bribery, knives, explosives, multiple murder, forgery, extortion, espionage, entrapment, torture, a rigged court, and finally the executioner’s axe. Even that was misaimed, and required three blows to kill.

Mary lost; and it was Elizabeth’s historians who got to tell the story. Mary deserved to lose, they said.But truth to tell, it was the Scottish lords who first murdered Mary’s husband Darnley, the King of Scotland;dethroned and imprisoned her; and forged the evidence that helped lead to her execution. Her son James betrayed her in a deal with Elizabeth to stake his own claim to the throne, and her spymaster Walsingham fabricated a plot to trap Mary into committing treason

Just imagine how the history of the Russian succession of President Vladimir Putin will come to be written, and by whom.

This month, for the first time since he came to power five years ago, Putin’s standing in the polls has dropped so fast and so low – maybe as many as 30 percentage points below the published numbers -that the president can no longer be confident of assuring his own succession. If he cannot do that, he and his allies realize they may soon be at the mercy of their opponents. In the fractious and unconfident staff that surrounds the president, this has triggered the worst fears they have known – for their own futures. Their loyalty, never certain in Putin’s mind, is in grave doubt; their ability to manage the state, never assured before, has become even more unlikely now. The regional lords, elected or appointed governors, have discovered they can defy the Kremlin with a few hundred elderly protesters on the streets.

And the business lords, the dozen or so oligarchs, each worth a multiple of a billion dollars, have revived the confidence to replace Putin with their own candidate. This combination of forces has provoked the most serious crisis of political power in Russia since Boris Yeltsin began his challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989. By English standards, the methods used then were relatively bloodless, although that’s no guarantee for Russia’s time ahead.

But wait a minute. This is not a history to be dictated by the winners of the 1990 contest that is obliged to repeat itself. Putin may be desperately short of voters, soldiers, and prosecutors. But he has restored the one state power that can save him this time round. It’s the power to tax.

Yeltsin abrogated that power, allowing his supporters and ^financiers to pay none, and ensuring that the voters would have no alternative but to accept a 100-percent income tax rate – the non¬payment of salaries. Putin’s “monetization” reform was premised on the quaint notion that the government’s services should be paid for at cost, and that incoming tax revenues on wealth would be more than adequate to pay for public expenditures aimed at poverty. Although he has yet to admit that the theoreticians whose plans he accepted were the same men who implemented Yeltsin’s perverse income tax, Putin has realized the colossal mistake he made in withdrawing the in-kind social benefits Yeltsin left alone, and replacing them with less cash than they cost.

The fiscal gap, Putin has been told by Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin – he learned his tax craft during the Yeltsin years as apprentice to Anatoly Chubais, the most hated man in Russia then – will cost Rb200 billion ($7.1 billion) to cover. That Putin has no choice now but to spend that money to end the state robbery of the poor, and to assuage the voters, is admitted by all, including the president. The choice that is still his to make is where and how to find this money. When the history of the Putin succession comes to be written, it will be said that Putin’s choice for how to raise that money will have decided the leadership of the country beyond the parliamentary elections of 2007, and the presidential election of 2008. Those government officials, who are already staking their own futures with someone other than Putin, the cash cannot, and should not be raised by a large increase in taxes this year.

But for Putin, a tax aimed directly at his sworn enemies, the most unpopular men in the country, ought to be the natural remedy for this crisis. And he does not need fresh manpower, nor new laws, to do so. All Putin must do is to order Kudrin’s finance ministry and the federal tax authorities to enforce the existing tax provisions on transfer pricing and tolling. A report by the Tax Ministry to the Prime Ministry last September spelled out how these schemes have been used for years to cut corporate taxes to a fraction of the legal obligation. Other tax avoidance schemes, using, for instance, the letter of regional tax laws in Chukotka – Abramovich’s territory -but violating the reinvestment provisions of those laws, have been exposed by the Accounting Chamber, especially for such beneficiaries as Abramovich’s Sibneft. However, the tax bills have not been delivered.

If he decides to do so, Putin can afford to be generous. According to a recent report by Fridman’s Alfa-Bank, “though there seems to be a general understanding in the market that more ‘prophylactic’ back tax claims for other oil producers may emerge, the general consensus is that they will not be anything comparable with the scale of Yukos’s penalties.” In other words, if Putin decides to enforce the tax laws against the oligarchs’ enterprises, he can afford to waive penalties and interest. He will have his $7 billion for the benefit of Russia’s urban poor. And before he attempts to introduce monetization of municipal housing benefits, he will be able to demonstrate to the voters that the rich will have already paid what the law obliges them to.

Call this the monetization of oligarch theft. It is so obviously Putin’s choice now that every man and woman in the street knows what is at stake if he fails to make the choice. For Alfa-Bank, “the continuing uncertainty over this issue is quite irritating, and will surely continue to weigh on overall sentiment.” Putin now must choose whether it will be he or his detractors who will decide the sentiment that will prevail in Russia.

- Print This Post Print This Post

MOSCOW – Andrei lllarionov is a coward, but President Vladimir Putin isn’t strong enough to say so. This makes the lllarionov case the very opposite of what Putin’s enemies in the media are claiming.

lllarionov is one of the leftovers of the laissez-faire, free-for-a-few economics of the Boris Yeltsin era (1991-99). Married to an American studying for a Harvard PhD, the combination of Harvard economics faculty and Russian privatization ought to have long ago disqualified lllarionov from any public office funded by the Russian taxpayer, let alone one at the invitation of the Kremlin. However, since lllarionov hasn’t been invited to speak to the president for a very long time, his function has been that of a cheap lightning rod – to deflect attacks on Putin himself; to unsettle Anatoly Chubais, the electricity boss and another leftover from Yeltsin privatization schemes still in office; and to confound the doctrinaire policymakers in Washington, who still have influence on American public opinion toward Putin.

Accordingly, lllarionov has served as the president’s official economic adviser, and also his emissary to the Group of Eight (G8) countries dominated by the US. These are sub-ministerial assignments in which protocol is more important than power. But without the protocol he has enjoyed, lllarionov would be one of dozens of Russian chatterers seeking a perch in the Western media. No one would pay him attention. In none of the governments of the other seven G8 countries would it be honorable for a man who advised the head of government to stay in his post if he opposed his leader. A ranking adviser in those seven governments who finds himself at odds with the policies and decisions of his superiors and colleagues would resign, lllarionov, who has repeatedly attacked President Putin’s policies, doesn’t have the gumption to do that.

After Putin’s end-of-the-year press conference, lllarionov gave several media interviews and took himself to a Moscow courtroom to watch proceedings in the trial of Yukos bosses Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. He was there, said Khodorkovsky’s lawyer, as an “ordinary visitor”. In his interviews, lllarionov did not cover much economic policy ground. Instead, he publicly condemned Putin’s handling of the oil company affair, calling Yukos “the best company in Russia”, and the dismantling of its shareholding and corporate structure the “swindle of the year”. He added: “This entire affair regrettably demonstrates that any of the official or semi-official explanations given to the public regarding the Yukos affair does not have a leg to stand on.” That remark included Putin; lllarionov knows only too well that it was the president who was the principal decision-maker in the Yukos case.

lllarionov even went on to encourage US intervention in the Yukos case. He endorsed what he called the “victorious revolution” of Ukrainian opposition leader Victor Yushchenko, warning that Putin’s policies are leading “unavoidably” to a comparable revolution in Russia itself, lllarionov said that on a Moscow radio station on December 30. On January 3, a presidential decree was released, announcing that lllarionov had been relieved of his position as Russia’s G8 emissary and replaced by presidential assistant Igor Shuvalov. There was no mention of lllarionov’s post as economic adviser, which he retains, by default.

For this performance, lllarionov has been treated as a hero in the anti-Putin press at home and abroad, not because he has enlightened anyone with the contents of his economic portfolio or said anything that hasn’t been said dozens of times before. Rather, he is the hero of the moment for having bitten the hand that feeds him. Ekho Moskvy, a radio station that used to be former US president Bill Clinton’s Moscow favorite, conducted a purported four-minute poll, in which 9,200 listeners called in -that’s 38 per second – indicating that 86% believe lllarionov should stay in his job to influence the president. The Anglo-American media then judged lllarionov’s removal as the G8 representative as a fresh example of Putin’s refusal to be influenced and of the president’s dictatorial tendency.

If 38 Muscovites per second believe lllarionov should keep his post, it would behoove lllarionov to expose a little more of his economics portfolio than the fistful of issues on which he has expressed himself so plainly. Why, for example, has he remained so conspicuously silent – why indeed has the entire Russian government, parliament, the judiciary, and the press – been so indifferent to the privatization auction of the state’s shares in Russia’s leading steelmaker, Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Combine (MMK), which took place the week before lllarionov launched himself on behalf of Yukos and Ukraine. Can lllarionov be a hero because he defends the corrupt privatization of Yukos but as an adviser to the president, has nothing to find fault in the mysteriously under-priced privatization of Magnitka?

On December 22, the government’s privatization agent, the Federal Property Fund, put up for auction the state’s 17.8% shareholding (equal to 24% of the voting shares) in the steel plant. Though there were 11 nominal bidders, there was, in fact, no competitive bidding and the auction was declared over as soon as it started, with a sale price of US$790.15 million – this was the government’s starting price. This can be estimated to represent a price of $0.42 per share. The winner of the stake was a company called UFGIS Structured Holdings Ltd, which represented the management of the steel plant, headed by its chief executive, Victor Rashnikov. The Rashnikov group already controlled about 57% of Magnitogorsk through a secretive web of onshore and offshore companies that also manages the trade of the plant’s annual production of 10 million tonnes of steel worth about $4 billion at current prices. A report to Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov by the Tax Ministry in September indicated that Magnitogorsk paid just 12% its revenues in taxes in 2003, a fraction less than its steelmaking peers Severstal and Novolipetsk, but well below the tax rates of the major Russian oil companies. The report suggested that various tax minimization schemes, including transfer pricing between units of the same group, were at work.

Even if the Tax Ministry suspected Magnitogorsk of paying the state less in taxes than it should have, officials in other ministries thought the state should receive even less in value from the privatization than the balance sheet suggested. In July, for example, an official of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade announced that the sale of the Magnitogorsk shareholding should fetch at least $275 million. At that time, the plant management was still trying to defer a date for the privatization to enable them to accumulate enough cash to ensure that they would be the highest bidder. In August, Putin signed a decree removing the plant from the list of strategic federal property barred from privatization without express Kremlin approval. Magnitogorsk had been thus listed as part of the delaying tactics; its de-listing signaled that Rashnikov was ready to bid. Then on September 30, Prime Minister Fradkov signed a decree, adding the sale of the Magnitogorsk stake to the privatization schedule for 2004.his was the sign that Rashnikov was keen to get the sale over with as quickly as possible, before his rivals had time to raise the cash for a counter-bid. After years of red tape, the paperwork was rushed through to fix the auction date on December 22.

There was one last question the federal government had to decide. That was the valuation of Magnitogorsk, and the reserve price for the sale. It seemed that $275 million was a visibly small number and had to be increased, not least to keep it out of the hands of Rashnikov’s rivals. The price would have to be just enough to deter speculators, but not too high to create financing problems for the Rashnikov group. On November 20, the Federal Property Fund announced that the auction would start at $790.15 million. This was small enough: for the first six months of 2004, Magnitogorsk had declared a pre-tax profit of $710 million on revenues of $2.1 billion; after-tax income for the period was $524 million. Most Russian investment banks and brokers believed that rival bidding would drive the auction to a figure of not less than $950 million and perhaps as much as $1.5 billion.

What happened next is the tale of how Rashnikov’s rival, the Mechel Steel Group controlled by Igor Zyuzin and Vladimir lorikh, was persuaded to abandon a challenge it had been publicly preparing for more than a year. Mechel, whose principal steelmaking asset is the Chelyabinsk steel mill, but which also controls rich iron ore and coal mines, generated $2.1 billion in revenues in 2003 and $1.6 billion in the first half of 2004. Its annual steel output is just under 6 million tonnes.

Though the Rashnikov group was favored to win the Magnitogorsk sale because it already held a controlling interest that others were reluctant to challenge, Mechel -which had acquired a 17.1% stake for itself – announced that it intended to bid against Rashnikov, either alone or with another Russian steelmaker. But a challenger, Iskander Makhmudov’s Ural Mining and Metallurgy group, claimed that it could break up Rashnikov’s shareholding control in court and then buy up the pieces to achieve control with the state stake. But Makhmudov’s bid failed. Mechel pressed on and in October, Zyuzin and lorikh sold almost 12% of their own stock on Wall Street in the form of American Depositary Shares (ADS) to raise just over $330 million. “In our view,” reported Rob Edwards, steel analyst for the Moscow investment bank Renaissance Capital, “Mechel is gathering as much cash as possible to take part in the auction for a 17.8% stake in Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works.”

It was obvious that by itself, Mechel didn’t have enough cash to make the government’s reserve price, let alone compete against the heftier cash pile of the Rashnikov group. If Mechel were serious, then it would have to recruit a more powerful partner than itself. Various alliances between Russian steelmakers were rumored. The Evraz group, with three Russian steel mills, commands the largest steel production and earns the largest revenues; but it decided to bow out of the Magnitogorsk bidding when the Makhmudov challenge failed. Severstal, ranked third in output after Evraz and Magnitogorsk, had ample cash to buy the Magnitogorsk stake from the government. But the priority for Severstal’s spending, according to Alexei Mordashov, the controlling shareholder, was pursuit of foreign steel assets far from the reach of the Kremlin or the Tax Ministry in Eastern Europe and North America. Just one cash-rich Russian steelmaker was left -Vladimir Lisin, who controls the Novolipetsk Metallurgical Combine. For much of 2004, he had been spending an estimated $1.5 billion in free cash to take control of strategically vital assets such as coking coal supplies to his plant and ports that handle his steel exports.

It was Lisin, then, whom lorikh meant when he announced on December 9: “It is most likely that we will join up with someone.” Without saying exactly who, he had added: “We expect to conclude an agreement on joint participation in the auction in the very near future.” Over the next 10 days, Lisin made his own moves, securing permission from the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service to attempt to acquire up to 42% of Magnitogorsk’s shares with up to $2.5 billion in cash. If this was the partnership lorikh had unveiled, it appeared that Mechel was very much the junior player, if at all. According to the detailed prospectus Mechel had presented to US investors in October, the company’s strategy included a plan to expand its steel production by up to 40% in the next three years. Among the asset acquisitions planned, Mechel said it wanted to “make selective acquisitions of coal and other mining enterprises”, and “to continue to selectively acquire value-added downstream businesses such as hardware, stampings and forgings producers to help us reach our customer base, including in new markets”. Not a word was said about Mechel’s bid for control of Magnitogorsk. Was lorikh putting up a smokescreen for Lisin? Or was Lisin trying to soften up Rashnikov on Mechel’s behalf?

According to Mechel, during the weekend of December 4-5 and for several days that followed, its offices in Moscow were the target of an investigation by officers from the Ministry of Interior. The federal Tax Ministry said it wasn’t involved and so did the federal headquarters of the Interior Ministry. Regional officials in Chelyabinsk added to the denials. According to Mechel spokesman Alexei Sotskov, the purpose was obvious: “Somebody is insisting on checks at Mechel Trade House to prevent its bid for Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Combine,” he said. A few days later, Edwards of Renaissance Capital reported that Mechel had been hit with a fresh charge that the valuation of the company’s key assets – the Chelyabinsk steel mill, Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant, and Yuzhuralnickel – had been intentionally understated in order to limit the amount of cash subsidiary companies were obliged to subscribe to the group’s capital. “We believe that the likely source of this allegation is one of Mechel’s main competitors in the auction for the government stake in Magnitogorsk steel mill,” said Edwards. “We also think Mechel still has a good chance of winning.”

Mechel had already admitted in its October 4 ADS prospectus that it could face tax problems. The company’s lawyers had warned US investors that Mechel might face “significant losses” if the Russian tax authorities “challenge our prices and propose adjustments”. According to the consolidated financial data presented in the prospectus, the Mechel group paid income taxes of $74 million in the first half of 2004, reflecting a rate of 4.5% of revenues totaling $1.6 billion. In 2003, according to the US data release, the income tax payment rate was 2.3%, and in 2002, 0.2%. According to the prospectus, there was a risk that the financial statements might be subject to revision. Mechel’s accountant, Ernst & Young, the prospectus stated, “reported material weaknesses in our internal control and we may not be able to remedy these material weaknesses or prevent future weaknesses … We may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.”

In a listing of risk factors associated with the offer of the group’s shares, Mechel said that Russian transfer pricing rules, which took effect in 1999, empower the tax authorities to impose additional tax on companies when transfer pricing between related entities or in foreign-trade transactions is found to differ from market pricing by more than 20%. The rules, according to Mechel, “are vaguely drafted, leaving wide scope for interpretation by the Russian tax authorities”. Acknowledging the risk of a challenge, the prospectus said: “If such price adjustments are upheld by the Russian courts and implemented, our future financial results could be adversely affected. In addition, we could face significant losses associated with the assessed amount of prior tax under-paid and related interest and penalties.” According to the prospectus, “widespread tax evasion” is noted as a general factor in Russia’s economic instability. Mechel also suggested that the Tax Ministry’s “crackdown on certain Russian companies’ use of tax optimization schemes” may be “selective”.

But when the crunch came, and officers of an anonymous government agency fanned out through the Moscow offices of its trading subsidiary, Mechel claimed it was Rashnikov, not the Tax Ministry, at work. As the value of his newly minted ADSs started falling in New York, lorikh announced that he would fight off the challenge with a heavyweight for a partner. This corrected the fall in the value of Mechel’s shares and led the Russian market to anticipate a fierce and expensive bidding contest on December 22.

But they were mistaken. On December 21, Mechel announced that it had sold its 17.1% stake to the Rashnikov group. Lisin’s bid evaporated as if it had never been, and by the time the sun came up on auction day, there was no longer any competition for Magnitogorsk. Rashnikov, according to the Mechel disclosures, had paid lorikh and Zyuzin $870 million, which amounted to a price of $0.52 per share. This was 10 cents, or 24%, higher than the government’s starting price for its stake – a small premium for Rashnikov to avoid what industry analysts had been expecting to be a final price of at least $300 million more.

Renaissance Capital, which has been an adviser to Lisin in the past, said it smelled a rat. According to analyst Edwards, “The recent probings by government organs into Mechel may have caused the sudden transformation of Mechel from a keen buyer of MMK, seemingly at any price, to a willing and happy seller”.No one spoke up for the Russian government, which had every reason to believe that if the price Mechel had received for its shares on December 21 was a fair one, the Federal Property Fund had been badly short-changed by the failure of the December 22 auction to raise any money above the minimum price. Had lllarionov the hero been focusing on his portfolio, he might have advised the president or told the media that by elementary calculation the privatization of Russia’s most famous steelmaker had failed to realize a fair market price. All the extra value in the Magnitogorsk shares had been quietly transferred to the Rashnikov group, without a murmur.

And who benefits? According to a report by Alfa-Bank’s Moscow brokerage after the share sale, “We expect Magnitogorsk to consider the listing and sale of its shares on a foreign exchange (New York or London) as soon as 2005.” It has been difficult enough for Putin to manage the process of retrieving the ill-gotten proceeds of the Yukos privatization. Had Khodorkovsky not challenged Putin early in 2004 by proposing to sell a large stake of his company to the US, he might just have got away with it. If lllarionov remains the economic adviser, the process by which Magnitogorsk has just been privatized and is about to be sold to Wall Street will be just dandy – so long as Putin doesn’t learn what happened and doesn’t interfere once again.