.jpg)
British High Court to decide: Can Michael Cherney testify by video?
By JONNY PAUL JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT06/23/2011 05:42
LONDON – The British High Court has this week deferred a decision on whether Israeli oligarch Michael Cherney should appear in the London court in a case involving Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
Cherney, originally from Uzbekistan, now living in Israel, is suing Deripaska over a disputed shareholding stake in Rusal, the world’s largest aluminium company. However, following a European arrest warrant issued by Spain in 2009 Cherney will not travel to the UK, fearing arrest by British authorities.
On Monday, the High Court decided that further evidence was needed on whether Cherney should be permitted to give evidence by video link from Israel rather than appear in person in the London court.
A further hearing on this issue is expected to take place in July.
The case was originally brought to the High Court in London by Cherney in 2006.
Cherney claims he is owed a percentage of Deripaska’s shareholding in Rusal.
Cherney, originally from Uzbekistan, now living in Israel, is suing Deripaska over a disputed shareholding stake in Rusal, the world’s largest aluminium company. However, following a European arrest warrant issued by Spain in 2009 Cherney will not travel to the UK, fearing arrest by British authorities.
On Monday, the High Court decided that further evidence was needed on whether Cherney should be permitted to give evidence by video link from Israel rather than appear in person in the London court.
A further hearing on this issue is expected to take place in July.
The case was originally brought to the High Court in London by Cherney in 2006.
Cherney claims he is owed a percentage of Deripaska’s shareholding in Rusal.
Deripaska, who paid Cherney $250 million as part of the agreement, vehemently rejects
the claim. Cherney claims the deal included a 20 percent stake in Rusal.
In 2007, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the case as Deripaska was not a British citizen. However, the following year, the court said that although Russia was the “natural forum,” the case should be held in the UK because of “risks inherent in a trial in Russia.”
