LONDON (Reuters) - Gone are the Beluga caviar parties and ostentation that marked the arrival of Russia's billionaire barons onto the world stage: the new cool for real oligarchs is a much more modest mingling among the common people.

At least that's how metals magnate Vladimir Potanin, with a fortune of $14.5 billion and ranked as Russia's fourth richest man, sees it.

When asked about the garish ways of some fellow businessmen, the 51-year-old tycoon said: "I am so cool and tough that I don't need guards."

"The really cool and tough people are not those who go everywhere with hundreds of bodyguards - the really cool and tough guys are the ones who go without their bodyguards," said Potanin, who owns a 30-percent stake in Norilsk Nickel, the world's largest nickel and palladium producer.

Potanin, who sat with the crowds in ordinary seats while attending four days of swimming, basketball, volleyball and handball at the Games, said lavish displays of wealth were insulting and distasteful.

"It is not good to demonstrate your luxury and your wealth: to rub it in the faces of others is insulting," he told Reuters in an interview. "So you should be modest, try not to insult people by showing that you can do what they cannot."

Though he quipped that he drew the line at using London's public transport system, Potanin's decision to dispense with the VIP boxes indicates at least some of Russia's billionaires may be starting to take on the more understated code favored by the established wealthy in Europe, North America and Asia.

Driven in part by a need to appease President Vladimir Putin's distaste for public displays of oligarch opulence, the modesty marks a new stage in the roller coaster history of Russia's most powerful post-Soviet tycoons.

'BLUE-BLOODED OLIGARCH'

Potanin's privileged upbringing as the son of a high-ranking Soviet trade official and an education at Moscow's elite diplomatic academy have always set him apart from some of the more showy tycoons, many of whom started off trading theatre tickets, Lada cars and fake Levi's jeans on the streets.

"It is not so much that I am a blue blooded oligarch: I just don't feel like an oligarch," Potanin said in the hour-long interview at one of London's most exclusive hotels where double rooms costs 400 pounds ($630) a night.

"I am here not as an oligarch, I am here as an ordinary, regular spectator and I sit in the normal seats with the crowd. I have the same tickets as you do and I follow the same procedure as you," he said.

Building fortunes as the Soviet Union crumbled, a small group of tycoons known as the oligarchs convinced the Kremlin under late President Boris Yeltsin to give them control over some of the biggest oil and metals companies in the world.

The privatization deals gave Potanin and other tycoons the national champions of a former superpower, propelling them into the league of the world's super rich and earning them the enduring dislike of millions of impoverished Russians.

But if the 1990s were the time of often dangerous takeover battles in the wilds of Siberia, the 2000s were when Russia's billionaires signaled to the world that they had returned as high rollers almost a century since Russian aristocrats had dazzled Europe with gambling and sumptuous displays of wealth.

Roman Abramovich, whose fortune is estimated at $12.2 billion, purchased Chelsea Football Club in west London in 2003 showing the Russians had arrived. More followed.

With splendid fortunes and pasts as mysterious as Scott Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby, Russians became the stuff of legend and ridicule as the biggest spenders in cities such as London, where the trend prompted the terms 'Londongrad' or 'Moskva-on-Thames'.

The extravagance of Russia's rich abroad even became a source of pride among some Muscovites: Russia may have lost an empire, but at least its richest could still outspend the best of the West.

PRIVATISATIONS

The mastermind behind the loans for shares auctions of the 1990s said that ostentatious displays of wealth were insulting for millions of Russians who missed out on the privatizations.

"Many people say the privatization was unfair: that is true - it was unfair. That is a fact: some people became rich and others did not. Unfair does not mean illegal but it was inevitably unfair," Potanin said.

"I am not trying to say that I am poor and that I don't like beautiful things. But I don't like luxury for luxury sake or in the sense of showing off luxury," said Potanin, who owns a 75-metre yacht.

Potanin is not alone.

While the oligarchs still live in adrenaline bubbles of splendor that would test the nerves of most mortals, the richest are trying -- at least in public -- to portray a more conservative face to the world.

Vladimir Lisin, Russia's second richest man with a $15.9 billion fortune, is an avid hunter who prefers Cuban cigars and clay pigeons to showing off in public.

Others Russian billionaires take extreme driving holidays rather than bathing on the decks of lavish yachts.

Even Mikhail Prokhorov, the whiz-kid of Russian finance and Potanin's partner for 15 years, has reinvented himself as a politician with an "obsession" about Russia's future and a plan to put it on the right track.

Prokhorov, ranked as Russia's 7th richest man and its most eligible bachelor, was detained briefly in a French ski resort in a prostitution probe in 2007. He was released without charge.

Russia's 96 billionaires control fortunes worth a total of $376.1 billion, or a little under one fifth of Russia's $2.0 trillion economy, while China, whose $7.8 trillion economy is more than three times as big as Russia's, has 95 billionaires.

CHINA'S OLYMPICS?

Potanin, one of the biggest investors behind the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics with a $2.5 billion commitment, said the biggest surprises of the London Olympics had been the strength of the Chinese team, which so far has the most gold medals.

"We all knew they have been preparing themselves for swimming because there was a lack of medals for China in swimming. But I frankly speaking never thought they could be so successful," said Potanin.

When asked whether the strength of China at the Olympics merely fitted a wider growth of Chinese economic and political power, Potanin said: "Yes, that is true. But each time when we see it, it is surprising."

The world's 46th richest man, who said he did about 10 hours of exercise a week including jogging, stretching and Chinese Qigong exercises, said he hoped Russia would be among the top three medal winners at the Sochi Winter Olympics.

"We will not be number one: our aim is to be among the top three, that is realistic," he said.

"We used to have a powerful machine in sport, then there was nothing for 10 years. Now we are relaunching this machine - but when a powerful machine stops, it is very difficult to make it run again." ($1 = 0.6382 British pounds)

(Editing by Peter Millership and Jason Neely)

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Roman Abramovich has won his $6.5bn legal battle with his former mentor and business partner, in the biggest private court case in British legal history.

The Chelsea FC owner, one of the richest and most private men in the world, was accused of black-mailing Boris Berezovsky into selling his interests in the oil company and aluminium conglomerate they founded together at a knock-down price.

Mr Abramovich in turn, accused Mr Berezovsky of extorting money from him for political influence and claimed he had paid him $1.3bn to buy his freedom when Mr Berezovsky fell out of favour with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

In a year-long case that became highly personal, one of Mr Abramovich’s associates even accused Mr Berezovsky of sending a threatening text message to a potential witness, signed “Dr Evil”, the pantomime villain from the James Bond spoof films, Austin Powers. The message was never produced.

Mr Abramovich’s lawyers also accused Mr Berezovsky of “truly prodigious powers of self-deception” and giving evidence coloured by his “vanity and his self-obsession.”

They claimed that Mr Berezovksy was an “angry and embittered man” of “remarkable vanity and self-importance” which was “aggravated by a highly personal resentment of Mr Abramovich.”

“Large parts of his evidence can only be described as mendacious and dishonest,” they said in submissions to the court.

“He believes that Mr Abramovich has supplanted him in a position which is rightfully his and that he has acquired a sort of political influence under President Putin which he once enjoyed under a very different regime of Boris Yeltsin.”

Mr Berezovsky was once a “classic power broker” and one of the most influential oligarchs in Russia but the relationship was founded on krysha - political protection – and “the activities of a krysha or protector are inherently corrupt,” Jonathan Sumption QC, for Mr Abramovich, said in a written statement.

Mr Berezovsky "thought he had personally created Mr Abramovich out of nothing and put him in a position where he had only to sit there for vast sums of money to flow into his lap,” he added.

Laurence Rabinowitz QC, for Mr Berezovsky, had told the court that the two men had worked together during the Russian privatisation sales in the mid-1990s that followed the fall of communism to acquire an asset that would make them “wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most people.”

In the process they “became and remained good friends” he said, but they fell out when Mr Berezovsky, who had adopted a high political profile in Russia through his control of a television station called ORT, fell foul of the Kremlin and was forced to leave the country and seek asylum in Britain.

The television channel had run a number of stories criticising Mr Putin for the failure to rescue 118 Russian sailors from the sunken nuclear submarine, the Kursk.

That, he said left Mr Abramovich in a position where he was “in effect required to make a choice - to remain loyal to Mr Berezovsky, his friend and mentor and the person to whom he owed his newly acquired great fortune, or instead, as we submit, to betray Mr Berezovsky and to seek to profit from his difficulties.”

“It is our case that Mr Abramovich at that point demonstrated that he was a man to whom wealth and influence mattered more than friendship and loyalty and this has led him, finally, to go so far as to even deny that he and Mr Berezovsky were actually ever friends,” he added.

The case rested on a number of key meetings at the end of 2000 in which the two men and a third partner, Badri Patarkatsishvili, a Georgian businessman who died at his Surrey mansion three years ago from a heart attack, discussed transferring their assets to the West.

Security men working for Mr Patarkatsishvili secretly recorded the first meeting at Le Bourget airport near Paris and Mr Berezovsky later bought the tape for $50m.

At the second meeting, at Mr Berezovsky’s chateau near Cap D’Antibes in France, Berezovsky claimed that Mr Abramovich told him the Kremlin would remove his TV station from him if he did not sell it and prevent the release from jail of a close friend of Mr Berezovsky.

Mr Abramovich claimed there was no such meeting and the pair actually met at the French ski resort of Megeve a few weeks later and agreed to a $1.3bn pay-off.

In a last snub to Mr Berezovsky, Mr Abramovich allegedly sold his 25 per cent share of the company Rusal, the Aluminium conglomerate, for £1bn, to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch with ties to both George Osborne, the shadow chancellor and Peter Mandelson, the former Labour spin doctor.

The sale meant Mr Deripaska owned 75 per cent of the company and Mr Berezovsky and his partner were forced to accept just £289m for the remaining 25 per cent.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich just won a $6.5 billion legal battle against former friend and business partner Boris Berezovsky in the biggest personal court case in British history.

The months-long court case stemmed from a longstanding dispute in which Berezovsky claimed Abramovich had intimidated him into selling shares of Sibneft (later bought by Gazprom), the Russian oil giant the two had invested in during the 1990s.

Berezovsky sought $6.5 billion in damages in the case filed in London's High Court last October.

But the British judge on Friday found Berezovsky to be an "unreliable witness" and dismissed his claims in their entirety, according to the BBC.

Abramovich, the billionaire of the Chelsea football club, must be pleased—the ruling absolves him from paying billions of dollars to his former business partner, although Berezovsky could still file an appeal.

Life is pretty sweet for Abramovich. He was orphaned as a child, but today is worth an estimated $12.1 billion and leads a fabulous life, from his gorgeous girlfriend and palatial home to his massive security staff and celebrity-studded parties.

Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea Football Club, one of the top soccer teams in the world.

Source: The Independent

He just won a $6.5 billion court battle against "frenemy" Boris Berezovsky. It was over a decades-old business deal involving a Russian oil company.

Source: The Guardian

Abramovich has a security staff of 40 people, which reportedly costs him $2 million a year.

Source: The Daily Mail

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Naomi Campbell is suing the Daily Telegraph for libel over an article claiming she organised an elephant polo tournament in India.

A spokeswoman for Campbell emphatically denied that the model, who campaigns against animal cruelty, had planned an elephant polo tournament in Jodhpur as stated by the article on 3 November.

The article, headed "Elephant polo at Campbell's party criticised", said celebrity guests at a party thrown by Campbell for her partner, the Russian billionaire Vladimir Doronin, would play the controversial sport in three-a-side teams. The online version of the article has been removed from the Telegraph website.

A spokeswoman for Campbell described the claim as "completely untrue" and said lawyers in London had been instructed to take action.

Campbell formally filed her libel claim against Telegraph Media Group, the publisher of the Daily Telegraph, at the high court on London on 5 December. She has instructed the London law firm Michael Simkins over the article.

Gideon Benaim, a partner of Michael Simkins LLP, said: "We have issued legal proceedings on behalf of Ms Campbell against the Telegraph, who were the original publishers of these allegations. We are instructed to pursue this matter until it is satisfactorily resolved. The allegations caused damage to our client, apart from the widespread repetition of the allegations, there were also protests outside the venue, and Indian government departments who wrote to us.

"However, it seems to me that government authorities and animal welfare groups in India were simply reacting to the untrue claims that had been made. The simple truth is that there was no plan for elephant polo. Ms Campbell did not cancel it because it was never going to happen in the first place. We have as yet no idea where the false claims originated from, perhaps the Telegraph will let us know in due course."

Telegraph Media Group declined to comment.

Campbell fought a marathon legal battle with the Daily Mirror stretching back to 2001, when she won a case for invasion of privacy, breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act after the paper published an article and photographs of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting.

The court of appeal later overturned that ruling. Then, in 2004, the House of Lords found by a majority of three to two that Campbell's privacy was invaded by the Trinity Mirror-owned paper.

After taking the issue of recovery of success fees by lawyers to the European court of human rights, the Mirror won a unanimous ruling in 2011 that this represented a significant violation of freedom of expression in relation to the Campbell case.

The Daily Mirror was faced with a total bill for £850,000, of which £365,000 represented success fees – although the newspaper reached a settlement on costs for a total of £500,000.

The ECHR said the requirement to pay Campbell's success fees was "disproportionate".

However, the ECHR ruled by six votes to one that there was no breach of the Daily Mirror's freedom of expression in the earlier UK court judgment that the paper had invaded Campbell's privacy.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian onTwitterandFacebook.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian pork farmers and producers told Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev last week that government action is stripping them of profitability, as the squeeze between the rising price of feed grain and the falling price of pork is killing the industry’s plan to expand domestic production and replace imports.

In anticipation of worsening profit reports, the London stock market has sliced the share prices of the only two listed pork producers in the top-5, RusAgro and Cherkizovo, by 56% and 46% respectively, trimming their market capitalization to the $800 million level.

A hearing on February 6 at the State Duma’s Agriculture Committee heard testimony that the pork sector was hit with the biggest concessions of any of the farm and foodstuff markets when Russian trade negotiators finalized the accession agreement with the World Trade Organization (WTO) last year.

According to the WTO announcement of the import duty schedule for primary products (their incoming volumes are also subject to quotas), the duty for imported pork in quota is now zero. By comparison, in-quota beef is still subject to a 15% duty and poultry to 25%. The duty on imported meat at volumes above the quota are 55% for beef, 65% for pork, and 80% for poultry.

The purpose of the quotas to enable domestic pork production to replace imports was explicitly set out in July of 2011, one year before WTO accession, by then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. “In 2011,” he said, “Russia will consume some three million tonnes of pork, and we produce some 2,400,000 tonnes. So this year we will import some 600,000-650,000 tonnes. And next year…we will see a considerable increase in pork production, because we have been launching new livestock production facilities, pig farms. According to a preliminary estimate, we shall produce an additional 300,000 tonnes of pork. That is to say, next year we will import 350,000 tonnes of pork.”

The WTO rules came into effect in August 2012. They also limit the financial support the state budget can provide farmers, such as subsidized interest on bank loans, value-added tax concessions for new equipment, or price-controlled state-stocked fodder. “The total trade distorting agricultural support,” says the WTO, “would not exceed USD 9 billion in 2012 and would be gradually reduced to USD 4.4 billion by 2018. To avoid excessive concentration of support on individual products, from the date of accession to 31 December 2017, the annual agricultural support going to specific products would not exceed 30% of the agriculture support that is not for specific products.”

Energy subsidies to farmers, in the form of gas, fuel or electricity prices, have also been banned.

Finally, the new WTO rules disallow the application of veterinary or phytosantitary measures if they are intended as “technical barriers to trade”. According to the WTO, “except in case of serious risks of animal or human health, Rosselkhoznadzor [RSN], the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance, would not suspend imports from establishments based on the results of on-site inspection before it had given the exporting country the opportunity to propose corrective measures. Rosselkhoznadzor would send a preliminary report to the competent authority of the exporting country for comments.”

Last month’s RSN ban on imports of frozen and chilled pork and pork offal from the US, allegedly for the use by American farmers of the growth stimulant ractopamine, are being contested by the US Department of Agriculture and by the US pork exporters as a violation of the accession agreement. For a review of this and earlier technical controversies over RSN bans, read this archive.

Under these cross pressures, the Russian pork industry is already slaughtering pigs whom it is loss-making to feed with high-priced domestic fodder. At the same time, the industry is appealing for an immediate budget bailout to reduce the grain price. The Duma Agriculture Committee agreed last week to request an outlay from budget funds of up to Rb10 billion ($323 million) for fodder purchase. The Finance Ministry has responded with an offer of Rb6 billion ($194 million).

On February 7, Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov told Medvedev there should be an emergency increase in this year’s budget for the farm sector by Rb42 billion ($1.4 billion), including Rb15 billion ($500 million) in feed subsidies to meat, milk, and egg producers.

Yury Kovalev, head of the National Union of Pork Producers, said in an interview in a Moscow newspaper last week that the WTO measures have severely damaged the state plan to reduce Russian dependence on meat imports. “We consume 3.2 million tonnes of pork, of which 2.4 million tonnes we produce, and import 800,000 tonnes. Thanks to this protected market the profit margin in pig business is 20% to 25%. It is this rate of return which is the only way producer and farm companies can repay the banks. The plan was to reduce the share of imports to at least 15%.” Kovalev said that because of last season’s poor harvest, the price of feed grain has doubled. At the same time the price of live pigs has been cut by 30% because of the import surge. “As a result, the industry is unprofitable – by minus 15% to 20%. Pork is in a double vise. Therefore, we put the issue to the government that the pig needs help.”

Alexander Kostikov, head of communications and investor relations for Cherkizovo, explains why the price squeeze is hitting so hard on the pork producers’ bottom-line: “we must understand that in Russia pig production is still very young. Most modern pig farms were built in the last five years and they have been built with the assistance of loans. That is, for each kilogramme of pork, in the [retail] sale price at least ten rubles comprises the cost of [repayment of] credit. So it is clear that for the majority now, production has become unprofitable. The Cherkizovo company, for example, is very big on the one hand; but on the other hand we are also a diversified company – we have also in addition to pork, poultry and meat processing. When there is such [a pork price squeeze] in the market, other segments in general stabilize our business. But the situation with pig production in Russia is very complicated, very difficult. And now pig producers are counting on support from the state very strongly. Various ways are discussed in which the state can stabilize the market. And we hope the situation will return to normal.”

A recent calculation by UralSib Bank analyst Marat Ibragimov indicates how much cash would be added to Cherkizovo’s bottom line if the Kremlin agrees to an emergency outlay for feed. “Russia was forced to reduce import duties on live pigs from 40% to 5%, which led to a massive increase in live pig imports – by 34% YoY last year, according to the National Pork Producers’ Union. This squeezed domestic production by reducing prices, while fodder costs rose, driven by a bad grain harvest… Cherkizovo is Russia’s 3rd largest pork producer with a 5.4% market share in 2011. As such, we estimate that it may receive up to $10.8 million of state money, equivalent to 3.5% of Cherkizovo’s 2013E[estimated] consensus net profit.”

Just how abnormal the current situation is proving to be financially for Miratorg, the largest pork producer in the country, isn’t discussed by Miratorg’s spokesman, Dmitry Lgovskiy. He says this must wait until the annual report for 2012 is released in several weeks. Meantime, according to Miratorg’s financial report for 2011, its earnings (Ebitda) came in at Rb6.6 billion ($220 million), a 65% gain over 2010. The earnings margin also hit a record high of 55.9%; in 2010 the margin on earnings of Rb4 billion ($133 million) was 47.1%.

Based in the Belgorod and Kursk regions of western Russia, Miratorg is owned by the brothers, Alexander and Victor Linnik. They are commercial allies of Ziyavudin Magomedov, backing his takeover of the 50% state shareholding in United Grain Company (UGC, OZK) last May. In return, they received one of the seats on the new UGC board of directors, suggesting they may have contributed some of the Rb5.95 billion ($198 million) Magomedov offered for the winning bid.

Miratorg reports that in 2011 it held a Russian market share of 8.1% and “continues to strengthen its position”. The pork producers union tabulation for the top producers in the same year indicate a slightly lower market share for Miratorg. The new tabulation for 2012 will be released at the end of this month, and significant changes are expected in the wake of the import crisis and margin squeeze.

Nikolai Birulin is the senior expert for market analysis and forecasting at the National Union. He says that by accepting the WTO conditions, the Russian government allowed the mature pork industries of Europe and North America to lock in their capital and cost of production advantages against the revival of the much younger, developing pork industry of Russia.

“Even if we take the playing field, even if we consider that the investment phase is over in Europe and they do not pay off [the Russian level of debt], they can operate at a 2% to 3% profit margin. Even if we set aside the credit position, which today’s [Russian] enterprises need to pay and just focus on comparable operating conditions, we will see that our companies will be less competitive, despite a similar production and performance indicators, in terms of feed conversion, in terms of genetics . Because we have, as it turns out,[bank interest] rates higher than in European countries. Higher costs for the maintenance of pigs, for example, compared with Brazil, because with Brazil’s warm climate, they do not need to spend money on heating, no need to spend money on capital piggeries. Accordingly, their costs are lower. Therefore, if you open the border as emphatically as we are doing it now, we are not competitive in comparison.”

“Taking into account the investment component, the repayment of loans, the [Russian] situation is even worse. Consider the fact that Europe passed the same way after the Second World War and it has also closed its market to raise the price a little. Consider that it too created terms for investment attractiveness, so that investment would go into the industry. Once there was enough for domestic consumption, the surpluses are bought and sold abroad. So from self-sufficiency they moved into export. After that, as prices equalled the world market level, investments in the sector have stopped, and subsidies were paid to the farm enterprises to maintain the profitability necessary for the branch to exist and to reproduce. This is how the whole programme is designed. In North America and in other countries where [state] support of agriculture is big enough, it is very difficult to distinguish which degree of support is precisely available for pork. It is hidden. Lawyers there work very well there, and everything is built in such a way as not to violate the rules of the WTO.”

“Unfortunately, we have been caught in the middle period of the investment phase. If we can pay off the debt we have, then those modern enterprises which now exist will be competitive, taking into account cost of delivery of meat and everything else, albeit on the margin… We have developed a number of proposals, and they are being considered in the government to normalize the situation. If we will be heard, than we hope that the industry will be able to exist in the future. If not, we will see a very significant change in the market.”

In this market squeeze, it’s obvious that everyone loses; but adversity isn’t distributed proportionately. So who within the Russian industry is gaining, and who will benefit most from a Kremlin bailout? Before WTO accession, when he was still president, Medvedev claimed to be boosting competition when in the agro-industrial sector he was doing the opposite. Concentration in oligarch hands, not competitive diversification, was Medvedev’s real purpose.

According to Philip Owen, principal consultant at Volga Trader in Saratov: “The large farms have huge stores at their feed mills to take advantage of harvest prices. It’s the farms without their own feed mills, comprising still as much as 60% of local production, which have suffered most. Backyard farmers get paid in grain by the former collective farm, so [for them] money doesn’t count. Middle- sized producers are the most damaged. The spike in prices is reducing the diversity of competition.”

Russian experts are reluctant to say as much. The current squeeze, responds Birulin of the National Union, “is, first of all, beneficial for importers, because they have the decline of the foreign trade price above and inside the quotas. So, accordingly, they may either put this 15% it into their pockets, or for a 15% discount sell their products while preserving their profitability…We are already seeing a twofold increase in above-quota import volumes in the results of August-December 2012, compared with August-December of 2011.”

Then there is the special advantage Brazil enjoys. “Brazil uses preferential treatment as a developing country. Their coefficient is 0.75 [of the import pricing level for developed countries]; they have even smaller trading fees than the rest of the countries. So [Brazilian meat imports] are the cheapest…They lead in over-quota import volumes; almost 50% of the over-quota imports of pork to Russia are from Brazil.”

Assessing the impact of pork-barrel financing for Russian pork producers, Maria Bovykina, analyst for Alfa Bank, has reported to clients: “We think the news is NEUTRAL for Cherkizovo and Rusagro at this stage, as the proposal has yet to be approved and it is not clear how much each company might receive. However, the proposal to compensate for higher animal feed costs is potentially positive and would support gross margins.”

A European meat trader says: “Putin is keen on pig farmers so this [crisis] is not to be laid at his door.” So why has the president apparently abandoned the industry to the commercial raid of the importers? No one from farm, trade, or investment analysis is willing to answer, though the record of Kremlin-funded bailouts since 2008 clearly shows that state funded benefits favour, not only the process of consolidation of assets, but also those individual proprietors who have run up the largest debts.

Compared to the Russian livestock slaughter of the early 1990s, which then president Boris Yeltsin conceded for the advantage of North American and European Union meat exporters, this means a favour for the dwindling number of Russians who have got their hands on the pig, and aim to keep them there.

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Today, Forbes is out with its annual ranking of the world's richest people. Many on the list inherited their fortunes, live off of investments, or are content to sit on large stakes of companies they don't really participate in.

These are 15 people that despite already having dynastic wealth, have chosen to keep leading their companies. All of the people listed here run publicly traded companies, because the leadership functions at private companies vary. 

15. Mark Zuckerberg: — Net worth: $13.3 billion

Age: 28

Position: CEO at Facebook

Overall Rank: 66 (tie)

Source: Forbes

14. Tadashi Yanai: — Net worth: $13.3 billion

Age: 64

Position: Founder and CEO at Fast Retailing

Overall Rank: 66 (tie)

Source: Forbes

13. Vagit Alekperov: — Net worth: $14.8 billion

Age: 55

Position: CEO at Lukoil

Overall Rank: 55

Source: Forbes

Please follow War Room on Twitter and Facebook.

The tiny island country of Cyprus is in the spotlight this week for a surprise bailout plan that was specifically designed to tax deposits held by Russian gangsters and oligarchs.

You see, wealthy Russians love the country's lax citizenship requirements, which provides an easy way to get black money into the European Union.

But that can't be all that Russians love about Cyprus, right? 

The Mediterranean nation is home to more than 10,000 Russians, notably in the coastal city of Limassol, which is home to several Russian schools, Russian-language newspapers, and boutiques that sell some of the world's best mink coats.

So many Russians have made their home in the coastal port city of Limassol that they jokingly refer to the city as "Limassolgrad."

Source: Reuters

Limassol's tourist strip, which faces the water, has stores that cater to the Russians, selling everything from kefir (a Russian yogurt drink) to Russian beer.

Source: The Guardian

It's clear that the Russians are big buyers here when you see the large billboards advertising sea view villas and apartments — in Russian.

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

When exiled Russian Oligarch was found dead in his London home this weekend, speculation immediately turned to murder.

Violent death, after all, had followed Berezovsky throughout his adult life.

Berezovksy fell out of favor with the Kremlin shortly after Vladimir Putin took power. President Boris Yeltsin stepped down in 1999, and Berezovsky, as one of Yeltsin's close advisors known as the "Family", helped select Putin to succeed him.

It was an incredibly important decision for all of Russia's super rich oligarchs. They needed someone who could hold the country for capitalism as, towards the end of the Yeltsin administration, it was unclear whether or not the Communists would come back in to power, repossess all the companies that were privatized, and ruin the party for Russia's new elite (the oligarchs).

Berezovsky thought Putin was the man for the job, but Vanity Fair describes how their relationship soured about a year after Putin took office in 2000:

In August, a Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, sank off Russia’s Arctic coast; 118 men died, 28 of them likely as a result of bungled rescue efforts that the country watched unfold in real time. The tragedy became a public-relations disaster, in part because Berezovsky’s O.R.T. aired an audio recording of the president’s meeting with victims’ families, during which Putin lost his temper, lashing out at the families and at unnamed enemies. By this time, another oligarch and media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky, had been jailed briefly and forced to leave the country—but only after signing his media assets over to a state-owned company. The same fate now seemed likely to befall Berezovsky.

In October 2000, the French newspaper Le Figaro published an interview with Putin in which he held forth on the oligarchs: “Generally, I don’t think that the State and the oligarchs are irreconcilable enemies. Rather, I think that the state is holding a big club in its hands, which it will use only once. To deliver a crushing blow on the head. We haven’t yet resorted to that club. We just picked it up—and that was enough to attract public attention. But if we get really angry, we will not hesitate to use it.”

Berezovsky read this interview at his vacation home in Cap d’Antibes, France. He took it as a direct threat—confirmed by a summons to present himself for interrogation—and decided not to return to Moscow. He has lived in exile ever since.

So Berezovsky lived to regret his role as King-maker. He used his estimated $3 billion fortune to bring down the Putin regime from his new home in London. He even admitted that openly to Reuters in 2006, which prompted the British government to ask him to stop meddling in Russian affairs.

It was essentially a request for him to save his own life, as it was around this time that people with connections to Berezovsky started winding up dead.

The most famous of these mysterious deaths is the case of Russian spy, anti-Putin activist, and former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. In 2006 he was poisoned when radioactive polonium 210 was slipped into his tea. U.S. and British officials had never seen anything like it.

Litvinenko's wife, for what it's worth, told the Telegraph she does not believe Berezovsky killed himself, despite his depressed state at the end of his life.

From the Telegraph:

"From my point of view it is not likely that he committed suicide," she said. "He had a lot of enemies. He was an outspoken person and never tried to hide what he thought.

"When I talked to him last he was a little recovered and I believed he would be better. He started to take interest and to ask about my son."

Another former KGB officer who met with with Litvinenko the day he was poisoned, Dmitry Kovtun, was also hospitalized after their meeting and had traces of polonium 210 in his system. Kotvun insisted Litvinenko poisoned him.

Then there's Yego Gaidar, a Russian economist that helped carry out the "loans for shares" program that made Berezovsky and other Russian oligarchs so rich. He was a Yeltsin man. The day after Litvinenko was poisoned, he collapsed on a book tour and said he was poisoned as well. He died three years later of a blood clot.

Finally, Berezovsky's busienss partner Badri Patarkatsishvili was died in 2008. Patarkatsishvili was part of whatever deal Berezovsky made with Abramovich in 2004. Reports say that he died of a heart attack, but there are doubts.

From The Standard:

Even if a post mortem reveals Patarkatsishvili died from a heart attack, if there is no evidence of long-term heart disease police inquiries are likely to continue. This is because a number of compounds known to be used by the former KGB can induce heart failure, but leave virtually no trace. One is sodium fluoroacetate, a fine white powder derived from pesticide.

It causes irregular heartbeat and breathing difficulties before a fatal heart attack. Patarkatsishvili had difficulty breathing a few hours before he died and left a meeting to go outside for fresh air.

In 2007 Scotland Yard intercepted a plot to kill Berezovsky in London and kicked the suspected hit man out of the UK.

So wouldn't you suspect some foul play here?

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Alexander Rovt made his $1.2 billion fortune selling fertilizer, and he's parlayed some of that wealth to make serious investments in NYC real estate.

Take his Upper East Side townhouse, for example.

According to Forbes, Rovt sank $27 million into the home, including a recent $18 million reservation. It's just one of 35 properties he has in NYC (at last count) including the 30-room, 18,267-square-foot Sloane Mansion on East 68th Street.

It's the purchase of the Sloane Mansion that prompted Rovt to sell this smaller house. Not to say that this 6 story, 11,400 square foot townhouse is anything to sneeze at. It boasts five bedrooms, a full gym and sauna, a pool, and five outdoor spaces.

The property was first put on the market for $27 million last year, but since then the price has been chopped to $22 million. Not only that, but the listing changed hands from Matthew Lesser at Leslie J. Garfield to Pamela Marcus and Leighton Candler at Corcoran.

Since there are 6 stories, these steps would be your best friends.

After climbing all of them you may need to dip in the pool.

A lovely game room

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

More than thirty people were charged by federal authorities in a massive illegal gambling, money laundering, and extortion scheme tied to Russian organized crime, according to an indictment in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York.

The operation allegedly involved two criminal organizations, Nahmad-Trincher (based in Los Angeles and NYC), which catered to millionaires, billionaires and poker pros, and Taiwanchik-Trincher (based in Kiev, NYC, and Moscow), which serviced oligarchs from Russia and the former Soviet Union.

According the indictment, these groups had operations spanning across continents with defendants located in Los Angeles, Russia, New York and the former Soviet Union, bank accounts in Switzerland, holding companies in Cyprus and the United States, and a gambling website in Taiwan.

The characters in the drama include the son of a billionaire art dealer, a Bronx plumber, a JPMorgan branch manager, a real estate firm in New York, a car repair shop in Brooklyn, and a Russian man charged with allegedly bid-rigging the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games, etc. 

Basically, this goes deep.

The Taiwanchik-Trincher Organization, which the indictment identifies as an "international organized crime group with leadership based in New York City, Kiev, and Moscow," was allegedly led by Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov (a.k.a. "Alik"), Vadim Trincher (a.k.a. "Dima"), and Anatoly Golubchick (a.k.a. "Tony"), the indictment said. They are all named as defendants.

You might recognize the name Tokhatkhounov. He was the guy charged with allegedly bribing officials at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, according to the indictment.

Based in Russia, Tokhatkhounov was allegedly referred to as "Vor," which is defined as a Russian term meaning "Thief-in-Law."

It's basically like a version of the "Godfather," and is a moniker bestowed on the highest-level criminal figures from the former Soviet Union. According to the indictment, a "Vor" gets tribute from other criminals, offers protection, and uses "their authority to resolve disputes among criminals."

Tokhatkhounov's group allegedly ran an illegal gambling business, money laundering, extortion, and other criminal operations. The crux of their business, however, was a series of high-stakes poker games and gambling activities frequented by oligarchs.

Nahmad-Trincher, based in Los Angeles and NYC, was structured in much the same way, but catered to Wall Streeters, pro athletes, and Hollywood stars, The New York Times reported.

No famous figures were named specifically in the indictment.

Names or not, we're talking big money here — like $50 million running through Cypriot and American shell companies, or $499,800 sent to a bank account in Taiwan owned by an illegal gambling website operating in the United States, or $850,000 moving from a Swiss bank account to a U.S. bank account under the control of Noah "The Oracle" Seigel.

To hide all these transactions, says the complaint, the Trincher groups relied on a sophisticated money laundering operation. Not only did they run money through a Brooklyn car garage, a real estate company, and an online used car dealership, but they also used a JP Morgan branch manager in NYC named Ronald Uy.

Uy, who was named as a defendant, allegedly assisted "in structuring several transactions at the Bank designed in part to avoid generating currency transaction reports," according to the indictment. 

Of course, gambling doesn't work out for everyone all the time. When one client wins, another one must lose. Losers playing in the Trincher group's high stakes games could, according to the Feds, expect violence or at least threats of it.

In one case," Nahmad-Trincher allegedly took control of 50% of "Client-3's" Bronx-based plumbing business when he racked up $2 million in gambling debt.

There were several arrests made today in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and other places, according to the New York Post. 

Earlier this morning, the FBI raided Helly Nahmad Art Gallery at the swanky Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan's Upper East Side. The Feds were looking for Helly Nahmad, the son of billionaire art baron David Nahmad. 

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Last week we learned that Skorpios, the famous private Greek island that once belonged to shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis, had sold to an anonymous Russian billionaire for $153 million.

It's now been confirmed that the buyer was Ekaterina Rybolovleva, the 24-year-old daughter of Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev, a potash tycoon said to be worth $9.1 billion and the largest shareholder in the Bank of Cyprus.

Does her name sound familiar?

Ekaterina Rybolovleva made headlines in late 2011 when she bought former Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill's penthouse at 15 Central Park West for $88 million, one of the biggest residential real estate deals in New York City history. Presumably, her father bankrolled the purchase.

A representative of the Rybolovlev family confirmed the Skorpios deal to Forbes, saying in a statement: “A company belonging to a trust acting in the interest of Ekaterina Rybolovleva has completed the purchase of a group of companies formerly ultimately owned by Mrs Athina Onassis. Amongst the assets of this group of companies are the islands of Scorpios and Sparti."

She will reportedly use it for leisure and as a long-term investment.

Skorpios, which Onassis bought in 1962 for $15,000, was made famous as the location of his wedding to former First Lady Jackie Kennedy in 1968.

The island was sold by Athina Onassis Roussel, Onassis's granddaughter and only surviving heir.

SEE ALSO: Introducing The World's Hottest Billionaire Offspring

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Tethered high above Victor Pinchuk’s newest steel smelter at the Interpipe plant, visible for miles around the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk, is a large balloon. It’s meant to symbolize what the Interpipe website is calling the smelter’s state-of-the-art technology — “the construction plant has no harmful effect on the atmosphere or social surroundings”; also its historical uniqueness in the steel industry west of the Russian border – “a vital step in the development of the domestic Ukrainian pipe industry.” For the curious and for asthmatics, Interpipe is offering guided tours of the plant to demonstrate how it “marks the beginning of a green era in the metallurgical industry.” The plant’s press office says the balloon construction is called Sun Interpipe. “It’s an art object, and we are not going to remove it.”

Less intentionally, the balloon symbolizes the sky-high cost of building the smelter and supplying it with electricity; Pinchuk’s growing billion-dollar debts; and the collapse of demand for the steel products Pinchuk is offering for sale in Ukraine and Russia, Interpipe’s make-or-break markets.

Although Interpipe remains privately held by Pinchuk, documents the company has prepared with his bankers to cover his debts, together with bank sources, reveal how strapped for cash Pinchuk is. The balloon is also going up for Pinchuk, as he tries to raise at least $143 million, perhaps ten times as much, from a claim filed in the UK High Court against two rival Ukrainian metals magnates, based on recollections of meetings Pinchuk and the others held in the Ukraine, Israel, Sardinia, and Switzerland, starting nine years ago.

An unusual internet release by Pinchuk’s investment unit, EastOne, provides a four and a half-minute interview with Pinchuk’s lawyer, Oleg Mubarakshin, and a one-page text summarizing the London claim. This was filed, the text says, on March 12, 2013. A coordinated release of the material produced a spate of near-identical newspaper reports in the Ukraine, three in Russia, and one in London.

According to the claim summary, in 2004, when Leonid Kuchma was President of Ukraine, an iron-ore mining company called Krivorozhskiy Zhelezorudnyy Kombinat (KZhRK) was privatized for $130 million. Pinchuk was Kuchma’s son-in-law. He claims that Gennady Bogolyubov and Igor Kolomoisky, two rival steelmakers and partners in the Privat banking group, agreed “through a qualifying entity” to bid and buy the asset from the government. They then, allegedly, “undertook to transfer KZhRK to Mr Pinchuk upon being reimbursed the purchase price of $130 million plus a 10% ($13m) commission. Mr Pinchuk duly paid the full US$143 million but the asset was not transferred to him.”

Pinchuk says he took operational control of the mine. But in March of 2005 he was ousted by “persons believed to have been acting on the instructions of the defendants [who] forcibly entered the premises of KZhRK and took control of the plant.” Another eighteen months elapsed, and then on September 4, 2006, the trio allegedly met together. What happened next is the core of Pinchuk’s lawsuit: Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky, according to Pinchuk, “declared a trust in respect of KZhRK in favour of Mr Pinchuk, and gave him various undertakings regarding its transfer. In breach of trust and contract, Mr Bogolyubov and Mr Kolomoisky have failed to transfer KZhRK to its rightful owner, Mr Pinchuk, and it appears that they may have sold approximately 50% of KZhRK to a third party in 2007.”

Rinat Akhmetov, another Ukrainian metals magnate and owner of four steelmills, is identified by Pinchuk as the buyer of that stake in KZhRK. Pinchuk is also claiming that Akhmetov is a witness to the deal-making he undertook with Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky.

Mubarakshin — a Moscow-trained lawyer who worked for the beer group Inbev before joining Pinchuk — identifies in his video clip “repeated promises”, and a great deal of talking. “For years and years”, Mubarakshin said, “we tried over and over again, but every attempt at reaching agreement failed [because] Mr Bogolyubov and Mr Kolomoisky didn’t do what they said they would do.”

White & Case are the solicitors for Pinchuk, led by David Goldberg, a Russia case specialist. The barrister is Antony Grabiner QC, appointed a baron in 1999. Recently, Grabiner has been engaged to defend Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited against charges of illegal hacking and bribery of police.

Mubarakshin was asked to identify the place where the Ukrainians met in September 2006 for the meeting on which Pinchuk’s contract and trust claims depend. He and the court papers confirm it was Geneva. According to the 23-page Particulars of Claim, filed by Pinchuk’s lawyers, what was said in Geneva was “an oral agreement…in part evidenced in writing”. There was also a handshake. But the Pinchuk group declines through its spokesman at Maitland, a London public relations firm, to make available a copy of signed documents of contract or trust which Pinchuk is alleging to have been breached.

Pinchuk’s lawyers also reveal that Bogolyubov wasn’t at the Geneva meeting, so there is no evidence that he shook hands or participated in what was said. See Section 31, page 11 of the Particulars of Claim here.

Briefed independently, the Financial Times (FT) cites Pinchuk himself as conceding the evidence for his claim “was mainly made verbally.” The FT also cautioned that “the risk of a dispute centered on verbal agreements was laid bare in the case of [Boris] Berezovsky.” The FT report conveys doubt “if the case reaches trial”.

The itemization in the court papers of the meetings Pinchuk believes will substantiate his $143 million deal refers to “oral agreement”, the terms of which allegedly depend on the recollection of witnesses. These include the principals, their employees, go-betweens, and in one meeting, an Israeli rabbi named Shmuel Kaminetskiy.

Bogolyubov is not commenting, and neither is his law firm Freshfields.

Independent sources believe there was a meeting in Geneva between Pinchuk and Kolomoisky. But they say there is documented evidence that it was impossible for there to have been any trust, let alone a shareholding contract, between them at the time. The sources identify a substantial claim filed in US federal court in Boston by Kolomoisky in March of 2006, charging Pinchuk with fraud, money laundering, and racketeering in relation to another Ukrainian asset, the Nikopol Ferro-Alloy Plant. In that case, Pinchuk, an American cousin of his, and a second American, along with Interpipe and associated trading companies, were accused of an elaborate asset and trading scheme, which depended in the first instance on Pinchuk’s closeness through his wife, Elena Kuchma, to the Ukrainian president.

“In 2002,” one of the court submissions alleges, “ Pinchuk, as President Kuchma’s future son-in-law, was able to exercise effective control of Nikopol. Using his family connections, Pinchuk caused Nikopol to enter into a series of self-dealing contracts clearly designed to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars of Nikopol’s profits annually to entities controlled and/or beneficially owned by Pinchuk, Margulis, and/or Novack. These contracts caused Nikopol to (a) purchase raw materials (ore) at above market prices from entities related to Pinchuk, Margulis, and Novack and sell the finished product at below market prices to entities also controlled by Pinchuk, Margulis, and Novack; and (b) enter into unnecessary, profit-skimming tolling contracts, whereby Nikopol was paid a fee for processing ore, while other companies controlled by Pinchuk, Margulis, and Novack reaped the profits associated with selling the finished product on the open market.”

The illegal scheme, alleges the Boston court claim, dated March 30, 2006, involved “racketeering activity, including wire fraud, and, upon information and belief, acts of bribery (in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), money laundering, foreign travel in aid of racketeering, and illegal monetary transactions.”

Pinchuk himself was charged with having “used Kuchma’s influence to extort Ukrainian officials and secure their cooperation and assistance in carrying out the schemes.” Privatization of Nikopol in Pinchuk’s favour, according to a source cited in the US court documents, resulted in Pinchuk paying $80 million for an asset reportedly worth $1 billion. Details of allegedly fraudulent trading schemes are provided in the dossier; these continued through 2004 and 2005, and followed the victorious presidential election campaign by Victor Yushchenko, who took power early in 2005.

Loss to Nikopol of several hundred million dollars, plus treble damages under the US racketeering statute, were sought. The case was settled out of court, however, and the lawyers involved say they cannot comment. The new Pinchuk filing in the High Court reveals that the confidential settlement between Kolomoisky and Pinchuk occurred on November 22, 2006.

In Pinchuk’s London filing, he claims the Boston case was directly connected to the KZhRK deal. “The Defendants [Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky] sought to impose pressure on the Claimant [Pinchuk] to agree to their proposals by procuring the institution on 30 March 2006 of proceedings by certain of their companies (namely Athina, Varkedge and Wisewood) against the Claimant in Massachusetts, USA, in which spurious allegations and claims were advanced under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act.”

Why in parallel, between 2004 and the meeting on September 2006, Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov would, as Pinchuk charges, trust him with shares to the KZhRK remains to be clarified. Pinchuk is now alleging that the others broke the Nikopol settlement agreement, accusing them of having “acted in breach of the Claimant’s rights under the Constitution and the Beneficiaries Agreement in relation to the Ferroalloy Holding.” This claim, which has not been litigated before, is excluded from the ZhRK claim.

Mubarakshin was asked why Pinchuk didn’t buy the shares himself from the government. He responded through a spokesman that Ukrainian privatization rules at the time required that bidders for KZhRK had to qualify to buy the asset by holding at least 25% in the group from which KZhRK was being sold. Pinchuk didn’t qualify; he claims Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky did.

The record of meetings which followed over the next nine years names 15 witnesses.

By attacking the record of the US court case, and opening up its confidential terms, Pinchuk is putting his credibility in the US to an unusual test. That credibility is also exposed to scrutiny in records filed at the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) bureau of the US Department of justice. These reveal that Pinchuk is currently paying an American lobbyist $40,000 per month to arrange meetings for him with high US officials, such as Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. Clinton appears to have refused an attempt Pinchuk financed last year to promote a Ukrainian election endorsement by Clinton by meeting “with Arseny Yatsenuk, leader of the United Opposition, during the week of September 3, 2012 regarding democratization and free and fair elections in the Ukraine.”

Pinchuk has promoted his wealth through Forbes, which claims he is worth about $3.8 billion, based on estimates about Interpipe. According to Forbes, “the majority of his wealth comes from traditional pipe manufacturing; this past year, his Interpipe launched a $700 million steel plant, the first such plant build from scratch in Ukraine since 1991. Other parts of his diversified empire have not fared as well.” Pinchuk refers to himself in the court documents, together with Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky, as “billionaire Ukrainian businessmen”.

Pinchuk’s claims unexpectedly invite an accounting of his financial position, net of debt. Interpipe says its financial report for 2012 has been delayed, and there are no IFRS interim reports since the July 4, 2012, publication of the 2011 results. An analysis of the 2011 financial report indicates that Interpipe depends on Ukraine for 36% of its revenues, 25% on Russia; it was much the same in 2010. The asset concentration is even more dependent – 92% in Ukraine. The gross debt identified in the report is $1.026 billion.

At page 41 of the 2011 financial report, it appears that Interpipe’s banks have tried to secure themselves against the disappearance of trade proceeds by requiring Pinchuk to implement two cash pledges of $270 million and $160 million “arising out of certain intra-group sales contracts” and between trading subsidiaries and “their ultimate customers”. Combined, those pledges represent 26% of the sales revenue reported for 2011. As a condition of Interpipe’s bank debt restructuring terms, an override agreement with the banks also required Pinchuk to pay $65 million in fresh capital into Interpipe, plus a $40 million letter of credit – see Note 17. The terms also barred payment of dividends to Pinchuk (page 41). What therefore can be Pinchuk’s income if he has been denied dividends from Interpipe since 2010?

The evidence to answer that question is scanty, but it raises the possibility, made explicit by the Financial Times, that like Boris Berezovsky’s attempt to sue in the High Court for cash from Roman Abramovich, Pinchuk is trying a similar stratagem.

The 2011 financial report indicates Interpipe’s earnings (Ebita) for 2010 to be $169.5 million; $255.5 million for 2011. By calculating Pinchuk’s “net worth” as of March 2013 at $3.8 billion, Forbes is in effect calculating the market value of Interpipe at $3.8 billion. Assuming the 2012 Ebita to be not less than the 2011 figure, this suggests an Ebita-market cap multiple for Interpipe of 15x. This looks to be an exaggeration.

TMK, Russia’s leading pipemaker, is an obvious peer for comparison, even though it is four times larger than Interpipe by sales revenue. For TMK the ratio of Ebita to market cap is around 3.5x. The Forbes calculation of the “net worth” of Dmitry Pumpyansky, the control shareholder of TMK, is reported to be $2.2 billion. This Forbes calculation is a direct extrapolation from Pumpyanksy’s 70% shareholding in TMK. Comparing the Forbes calculations for Pumyansky and Pinchuk, the Pinchuk number appears to be unlikely.

It is evident from Interpipe’s financials that Pinchuk is running an enormous financial risk on the revenue and profitability of the new EAF plant, and the capacity of the markets to absorb its products. This in turns depends on the currently depressed prospects for pipes and other steel products in the Ukraine, in Turkey, Russia and other export markets; on the reaction of rival Ukrainian consumers of the extra steel scrap Pinchuk’s new mill requires; and on Pinchuk’s efforts to hold down the price and profitability of the scrap business.

According to Ukrainian sources, Interpipe currently depends on high-cost electricity supplied to Pinchuk by Akhmetov, whose testimony will be sought by both sides if the case goes to trial.

The record presented so far by Pinchuk fails to identify a link to the UK for the assets in dispute, or the meetings allegedly held to settle on terms. The language the principals and their witnesses used appears to have been Russian.

The little paperwork to which Pinchuk’s court claim refers was not in English, and according to the Particulars of Claim, it was drafted after the September 2006 meeting by Yulia Chebotaryova, an employee of Pinchuk’s since 1993 and currently chief operating officer of his investment unit,EastOne.

Despite the acknowledgement in the court papers that Bogolyubov was absent from the key Geneva meeting in 2006, jurisdiction is held by the London court over the three Ukrainians and the Ukrainian mine, according to Pinchuk’s lawyer, because “Mr Bogolyubov is based in London” and also because “the claim against [Kolomoisky] is so closely connected with the claim against Mr Bogolyubov that it is appropriate they should be heard together.”

The claim documents submitted by Pinchuk’s lawyers go one step further, arguing that when the meeting was held in Geneva Kolomoisky and the absent Bogolyubov agreed to be governed by UK law. Back in 2006 that was Pinchuk’s idea. “Following a suggestion by the Claimant [Pinchuk], the parties orally agreed that any disputes regarding the Constitution [deal terms] would be dealt with by the English Courts applying English law.” Whether Pinchuk can prove that or not, his lawyers have a fall-back position. This is that Bogolyubov is domiciled in London, though a source close to the Pinchuk side conceded that this may not have been the case when the September 2006 meeting took place.

A recent court case initiated by Elena Pinchuk, Pinchuk’s wife, may be a portent of what’s to come in London. In that case, which went through US arbitration and the courts for six years, a Cyprus company controlled by Mrs Pinchuk refused to pay a Washington landscape architect $170,000 (rounded) for work on the grounds of the family home at a former state sanatorium near Kiev. The architect counter-claimed, and by the time the affair was settled this past January, the bill for the Pinchuks came to more than $500,000.

Join the conversation about this story »

Captain Matthew Flinders was a late 18th century British Navy captain and one of the greatest explorer navigators of his time. His circumnavigation around the southern continent he called Australia also led to the naming of dozens of places by his name, along with a species of local citrus tree. He spent so much time at sea, and so little at home, he wrote a book about his shipboard companion which he entitled Trim, Being the True Story of a Brave Seafaring Cat.

Understandably, Flinders Mines (FMS) thought their hole in the ground in Western Australia should be named after the captain, though after their six-month brush with the Russians, Trim might have been more apt. Here’s the tale so far.

Victor Rashnikov, owner of Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Combine (MMK), won’t be claiming to own anything with the Flinders name after today’s court hearing in Chelyabinsk. Having concealed his intention towards Flinders Mines from the MMK board, public shareholders, Gazprombank, the Kremlin, and the stock markets of the world, his mutism is shamed by the cat.

Russian business, however, is business, and for all his customary bravado, this is an episode which proves that Rashnikov is far from being the master of his own ship.

In a predictably brief proceeding this morning, Judge Natalia Bulavintseva ruled that she would not hear evidence and argument on the merits of MMK’s takeover of Flinders Mines, as she has previously scheduled for today. Instead, she ruled that she is postponing the next hearing until July 2. At that time, Bulavintseva has also ruled, reversing a decision she issued on May 2, she will close her courtroom, and enable the phantom plaintiff, Elena Egorova, to obtain confidential MMK documents to prove her case that the Flinders Mines deal is a bad one.

The postponement comes two days after the quit-date for MMK to finalize its deal to acquire Flinders Mines. According to their scheme of arrangement, “the quit date for the deal is June 30, 2012. The wording says: “Quit date means 30 June 2012 or such later date as MMK and Flinders may agree in writing.”

It is therefore likely that, without ever exposing a company secret, minute of the board of directors, or indeed anything worth saying, Rashnikov has persuaded the Russian judge to let him exit without even the obligation to pay Flinders Mines a transaction break fee of A$2.5 million. There isn’t a major steelmaker in Russia who doesn’t think Rashnikov has manipulated the entire court case. They differ only on whether Rashnikov was taking orders from the Kremlin.

MMK’s annual general meeting of shareholders will convene tomorrow, May 25, and Rashnikov can be expected to say he cannot comment on the case because it is sub judice. If the audience dared, they would roll their eyes at that one.

The initiative now passes to Flinders Mines in Australia. Its share price was stuck at 16 cents in Australian Stock Exchange trading before the Chelyabinsk court began today. It cannot appeal against a postponement; but its lawyers are due to appear in the appeal court next week in Chelyabinsk to argue against the injunction preventing closure of the MMK acquisition. This is due to be heard on May 30 by Judge Galina Fedina. Bulavintseva may have decided to pass the buck to Fedina; she may decide to pass it back on the ground that until the merits of the case are presented in court, the safest thing is to preserve the injunction.

Both judges may be waiting for decision-making authority over the Russian steel and iron-ore mining sector to pass into new hands. Fedina isn’t likely to favour dropping the injunction on appeal, if Bulavintseva doesn’t dare hear the full case until July 2. The two judges can’t be blamed for their lack of foresight on steel investment and foreign policy issues that properly should be decided in Moscow. Without Igor Sechin in charge of the entire resources sector since the start of this week, the hands on this tiller may be President Vladimir Putin’s; or those of his new chief of staff, Sergei Ivanov; or Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, or his factota, Arkady Dvorkovich and Igor Shuvalov.

It may be time for Flinders Mines and its shareholders to decide that they are better off not extending the quit date, and letting MMK go. If the Australians have been telling the truth in the asides they have been slipping to hedge fund investors, there’s a Chinese and a Japanese buyer for their hole in the ground. For the bidding to start on a new acquisition, the MMK deal must be concluded. That is probably what has happened today.

Read more posts on Dances With Bears »

Join the conversation about this story »

The head of Angola's secret service made "fraudulent representations" to induce a settlement between two oligarchs warring over their African diamond interests, the high court in London has heard, as a controversial Russian tycoon launched a $1bn claim against a rival known as the King of Diamonds.

Arkady Gaydamak, best known in the UK as the father of the former Portsmouth FC owner Sacha, is suing his former business partner, diamond billionaire Lev Leviev, over claims Leviev failed to pay dividends earned trading diamonds from Angola. Gaydamak had previously received monthly payments from Leviev of "on average $3m" from 2000 to 2003.

The dispute centres on the pair's interest in a diamond sales operation called Ascorp, previously thought to be jointly owned by the Angolan government, Leviev and Antwerp-based Omega Diamonds. Gaydamak claims he owned a secret stake in the business, which held an exclusive deal to market the country's gems in an effort to prevent rebel fighters being funded from the proceeds of so-called blood diamonds.

Angola's efforts to force a truce in the case and avoid further negative publicity for the country emerged as Gaydamak, who was forced to give evidence via a video link as he fears arrest in the UK over his French tax affairs, admitted to signing a document giving up his claims to the diamond operations. However the businessman insists he was "induced to do so by fraudulent misrepresentations made on behalf of [Leviev] by one General Kopelipa, a highly influential member of the Angolan administration".

In August 2011, "General Kopelipa turned up at [Gaydamak's] hotel in Luanda, armed with copies of the draft settlement agreement drawn up by [Leviev's] London lawyers," Gaydamak's written evidence states. "Kopelipa informed [Gaydamak] that the presidential administration had approved the draft and that its terms were not negotiable, and pressured him to sign it there and then."

Apart from pointing to the existence of the settlement agreement, Leviev argues there was no signed contract between the pair when Ascorp was created. Gaydamak disputes that claim, arguing that a document dating to December 2001 was entrusted to the chief rabbi of Russia, Berel Lazar. Rabbi Lazar says an envelope containing a document "might have [been] shredded by accident" but he is refusing to come to London to testify in person.

The opening of the case is the latest in a line of infamous skirmishes involving Gaydamak, who last year succeeded in getting a conviction for illegal arms dealing overturned in the Paris court of appeal. Charges of tax fraud were upheld, however.

The image of Gaydamak's colourful business career is enhanced by his evidence, including insights into how he forged close relationships with the Angolan government during its civil war by constructing deals to sell it $70m worth of helicopters, as well as being involved in the "logistics and financing of the legal supply of arms, weapons and food to the official Angolan army".

The court also heard lengthy exchanges between Justin Fenwick QC, for Leviev, and Gaydamak over why the claimant felt compelled to hide his shareholding in Ascorp when he was "openly involved with Mr Leviev in 2000". Gaydamak claimed his legal troubles in France meant he was protecting Leviev, although the businessman was not forced to leave France until the end of 2000 when Ascorp had already been established.

The case continues.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich is worth $12.1 billion. That makes him the 68th richest person in the world, according to Forbes.

He made his fortune as the main owner of private investment companyMillhouse LLC, and he's known outside Russia as the owner of the Chelsea Football Club, an English Premier League football team.

Abramovich was orphaned as a child. He went to public schools and was an average student.

But today has one of the most fabulous lives in the world. From his gorgeous girlfriend and palatial home to his massive security staff and celebrity-studded parties, you'll hate him by the time you finish reading this.

Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea Football Club, one of the top soccer teams in the world.

Source: The Independent

His frenemy is fellow oligarch Boris Berezovsky. The two bought a controlling stake in an oil company, now they're battling over $6.5 billion in court.

Source: The Guardian

Abramovich has a security staff of 40 people, which reportedly costs him $2 million a year.

Source: The Daily Mail

The gonzo journalists at VICE figured the best way to really understand a Russian oligarch is to eat, hunt, and drink lots of vodka with one.

VICE's Ryan Duffy cavorted with billionaire business magnate Sergey Veremeenko for a day, providing some insight on just how nice it can be to own vast swaths of snowy Russia.

Forbes had Veremeenko's net worth at $1.4 billion in 2008, largely from coal, metals, and banking.

"It’s an American thing to pay taxes, no one here paid any taxes," Veremeenko tells Duffy over vodka." So basically it was a free-for-all until we elected Putin."

Some highlights include: A meal with Veremeenko's wife (2006 Miss World winner, although some argue Veremeenko rigged the competition), a hunting excursion, and some intimate time in the sauna.

Check out the whole video:

SEE ALSO: Hedge Funder Whitney Tilson Tells His Daughters What To Do If A Jerk Ever Says 'Get Down On Your Knees'

Join the conversation about this story »

Victor Pinchuk (right top) is the Ukrainian oligarch who last month hosted Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and other political wannabes or has-beens, to promote himself as the champion of Ukrainian independence. This week he stands in the UK High Court charged by two other Ukrainian oligarchs with bribery, corruption, theft of state assets, election-rigging, racketeering, extortion, embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy, and perjury, compounded by nepotism and sex with the only child of ex-President Leonid Kuchma (left). Holy Moly!

Russia is the frying pan from which the Ukraine is now trying to escape, Pinchuk and his celebrity guests agreed last month. But the fire into which Pinchuk is now committing his country is so flaming hot, it’s a wonder men with impulse-control problems like Clinton and Strauss-Kahn would wish publicly to endorse it, let alone a presumed presidential candidate like Hillary Clinton trying to raise money for her race to succeed Barack Obama. For campaign reasons, the two Clintons have been dissociating themselves from Kuchma’s record for years. But they have been taking Pinchuk’s money, and he is insisting it’s payback time.

Pinchuk’s timing is awkward. For the past six months he has put himself in the London dock with a claim that Gennady Bogolyubov and Igor Kolomoisky owe him an unspecified amount of money for shares in an iron-ore mining complex called Krivorozhskiy Zhelezorudnyy Kombinat (KZhRK). The claim was filed in the High Court this past March. The alleged deal was done between 2004 and September 4, 2006. Pinchuk claims he paid the duo cash, but they kept the KZhRK shares to themselves before reselling them to another Ukrainian oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov. “Mr Pinchuk”, according to his Particulars of Claim, “duly paid the full US$143 million but the asset was not transferred to him.” That story can be read here.

Together, Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky own the PrivatBank group, one of Ukraine’s largest conglomerates, and Ukrnafta, the leading oil and gas producer in the Ukraine. Separately, Bogolyubov owns Consolidated Minerals, a manganese and ferroalloy producer; Kolomoisky, aviation companies. Behind steelmaker Rinat Akhmetov, they are the three wealthiest business figures in the country. The net worth of Pinchuk’s steel pipe business used to rank him in their company, but no longer.

Pinchuk has asked the court to adjudicate in his favour, and award him the KZhRK shares, or their money value now; the income he might have earned if he had owned the shares for the past seven years; damages; interest, and costs. The quantum is probably ten times his purported outlay. With current indebtedness of more than $1 billion, dwindling cashflow, a default warning from Fitch Ratings, and insufficient cash in the bank to pay an Italian invoice for €26 million ($35.4 million). Pinchuk’s business is desperate for the new money; especially so, since international bankers he has recently approached say they won’t lend him more. The High Court is the payday lender of last resort for Pinchuk; read his 23-page prospectus here.

Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky have now filed separate defences in the High Court. The first runs to 17 pages; it was composed by Mark Howard QC, backed by Skadden Arps; the second is 46 pages long, and was written by Laurence Rabinowitz QC with Freshfields. Howard was on the side of Mikhail Chernoy (Michael Cherney) against Oleg Deripaska in the High Court a year ago; this settled out of court. Rabinowitz was on the losing side for Boris Berezovsky in his High Court claim against Roman Abramovich.

Read Bogolyubov’s dossier; and Kolomoisky’s.

The case presentation and evidence are complicated; so much so that it has proved too hard for the Financial Times’s court reporter Jane Croft to analyse or quote. The FT’s Ukrainian correspondent, Roman Olearchyk, has other reasons for taking Pinchuk’s side; while the paper’s columnist Mrs Moneypenny was on a junket to the Pinchuk-Clinton love-in last month, and admits she owes Pinchuk a favour.

The Wall Street Journal was on board Pinchuk’s motor yacht in Venice in July, and hasn’t come ashore for long enough yet to read the new court files.

Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky say there is no evidence of anything like the agreements Pinchuk claims for the sale and purchase of KZhRK. The duo say there were meetings in various places and at various times, some of which Bogolyubov didn’t attend at all. Pinchuk’s version of the oral record is disputed by witnesses who include a well-known rabbi.

According to Kolomoisky, such documents as were negotiated between the duo and Pinchuk concerned other assets engaged in the production of manganese and ferroalloys, not iron-ore. Those documents don’t mention KZhRK. The duo accuses Pinchuk and his lawyers of pulling a fast one on the court, adding an asset claim for which there is no paper record. “There was no such agreement [for KZhRK]”, Kolomoisky says. “As one would expect in relation to assets worth many hundreds of millions of dollars, the creation of the Ferroalloy Holding was the subject of a suite of detailed written agreements…those agreements make no reference whatsoever to any transfer of KZhRK shares to the Claimant [Pinchuk].”

According to Bogolyubov, Pinchuk “had no legitimate commercial bargaining position to cause either of the defendants to agree to acquire shares in KZhRK or transfer shares to him once acquired.” Pinchuk was a standover man, Kolomoisky argues, “repeatedly exploit[ing] his relationship with President Kuchma and his resulting influence over Ukrainian state-owned assets as a form of leverage to achieve his own financial and commercial objectives.”

Pinchuk’s scheme for KZhRK was criminal, this week’s London court papers say. Allegedly, he arranged with Kuchma and the Ukrainian state property agency to set an artificially low tender price for the sale of the state’s shares in the asset — $46 million compared to a market value of about $130 million – “in the hope he would subsequently be able to benefit from a sale at such a low price.” Pinchuk allegedly told Akhmetov in a telephone-call to threaten Kolomoisky that unless he and Bogolyubov agreed to buy the KZhRK shares from the government on behalf of Pinchuk, and kept his interest secret, Pinchuk would arrange with Kuchma to veto the legislation implementing the privatization. The duo decided they had to string Pinchuk and Kuchma along, avoiding a deal for KZhRK “until (at least) President Kuchma’s departure from office and the Claimant’s [Pinchuk’s] loss of influence.”

To sweeten Kuchma, Bogolyubov charges that Pinchuk demanded secret payments for a slush fund to finance Kuchma’s election expenses. In November 2002, Bogolyubov claims, Pinchuk proposed a scheme of monthly payments of $5 million, which would go into a “Special Fund”. The money was demanded as part of a related scheme to influence Kuchma’s power over the state’s 50% shareholding in Ukrnafta. With the duo holding 40% of this enterprise at the time, Pinchuk is charged with trading Kuchma’s support for their operational takeover of Ukrnafta. The kickback was $5 million per month into Kuchma’s pocket, and for Pinchuk himself “50% of the profits derived from the business of Ukrnafta net of these monthly payments.”

Again according to Bogolyubov, between April 2003 and September 2004 “the Defendants caused a total of USD100 million to be paid to companies owned or controlled by the Claimant [Pinchuk] for onward payment to the Special Fund setting up Share Purchase Agreements as a mechanism pursuant to which the Defendants would transfer those sums of money to disguise the reason for the payments.”

In October 2004 the court papers claim the duo discovered the $100 million hadn’t been reaching Kuchma’s special fund. Bogolyubov says he believes Pinchuk “kept the money for himself”. Whether he shared it with his wife, or concealed it from her and her father isn’t made clear.

Pinchuk’s evidence that he put two deposits adding up to 689.4 million Ukrainian hryvnias ($138.1 million) in the duo’s Privat Bank is dismissed by the duo because the cash was on quick-draw deposit “which could be withdrawn at any time.” The money wasn’t used as payments for KZhRK shares, they say in response to Pinchuk’s claim.

The Brooklyn rabbi, Shmuel Kaminetsky, makes a cameo appearance in the court papers when he was witness to a telephone call on March 15, 2005, between Pinchuk and Bogolyubov. According to Pinchuk’s version, Bogolyubov told Pinchuk in front of Kaminetsky that the shares Pinchuk wanted in KZhRK would be sold to him if he paid $143 million. According to Bogolyubov’s version, he and Kaminetsky were in Jerusalem at a museum opening, when the call came in. Pinchuk spoke to the rabbi, but Bogolyubov says he neither spoke to Pinchuk directly, nor gave the rabbi any buy-sell undertaking to relay to Pinchuk.

In sum, claims Bogolyubov, despite years of negotiating terms and conditions over many of Ukraine’s most valuable natural resources, terms were never agreed with Pinchuk for KZhRK, and “there are no implied terms arising from non-existent express terms”.

What, readers who have reached the age of consent may ask, has sex got to do with all this contentious and expensive lawyering? According to Bogolyubov’s brief, “from 1997 the Claimant has had a relationship with Elena Franchuk (the daughter and only child of Mr Kuchma) whom he married in 2002.” Kolomoisky’s lawyers word the relationship more explicitly: Pinchuk and Mrs Franchuk, Elena’s first marriage name, “cohabited” for five years, but didn’t tie the knot until 2002. 1997 was the year that Elena’s first marriage with Ukrainian politician Igor Franchuk ended. Pinchuk had also been married before.

Eleven years later there’s no doubt Pinchuk and Kuchma’s daughter are the loving couple they pledged in their marital vows. So even if a bit of slap-and-tickle went on between 1997 and 2002, what possible bearing could that have on this case? The answer, according to Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky is that with, through, and because of his wife, Pinchuk was able to manipulate the duo into accepting schemes of illegal favour-seeking and corrupt favour dispensing.

Pinchuk has now put himself, his wife and ex-President Kuchma on trial in London with more evidence on the history of Ukrainian business than has ever presented itself for cross-examination and judgement before. For information on what exactly has gone on in the second Mrs Pinchuk’s back yard, read this.

Join the conversation about this story »

Nello Balan, owner of  Nello, an Upper East Side restaurant (and favored Wall Street eatery), has sold a 4 pound, $95,000 white truffle to Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin, according to the New York Post. 

It may be the largest white truffle ever sold.

Bloomberg estimates Potanin's net worth at around $13.5 billion. He is one of Russia's super rich businessmen known as an "oligarchs" that control vast amounts of Russia's natural resources.

Potanin's wealth comes from nickel — he owns 30.4 percent owner of Norilsk Nickel, the world's largest producer of the commodity.

Potanin spends most of his time in Moscow, so it's likely that the truffle won't be in NYC for long. Given how serious the truffle bubble is getting in this town, though, that could be a good for all of us.

Now see how can Potanin use those truffles>>

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin bought a $95,000 white truffle from NYC restaurateur Nello Balan, according to the New York Post.

And now that we're over the price tag, the only question remains... what the heck is Potanin going to do with all that expensive truffle?

White Alba truffles, as they're known formally, are incredibly rare. They hail from the Alba region of Italy and have never been domesticated — dogs and pigs are used to hunt them where they grow at the base of oak trees.

White Albas are also seasonal, which means here in NYC, around late September/early October total truffle madness ensues. Shipments are well documented on food blogs around town, and restaurants tweet out updates of their truffle supply status.

Business Insider reached out to some local foodies to see what they would do with four pounds of these incredibly rare fungi and the response was quick — first thing's first, said one, "I'd make truffle oil to sprinkle on EVERYTHING!"

That involves simmering the truffle in oil so that its flavor is released into the oil. The stronger you want the flavor, the more truffle it will take, and Potanin's chef definitely won't use all of it. Four pounds is a lot of truffle.

After you've got the truffle infused oil, you can use it to make glorious truffle fries (or something else... but we like fries).

It also might be a good idea to dry some of the white Alba truffles and freeze them for a rainy day.

After that, the world is Potanin's oyster. The white Albas can be infused into butter, cream, cheese or milk (you may want to freeze those dairy products too).

The truffles can be used in a pasta or risotto (pretty standard), or you can just put a healthy portion on top of your favorite dish.

Some winning dishes from last year's NYC truffle season include Restaurant Marc Forgione's addition of white Alba shavings to his brick chicken and Colicchio and Sons' gnocchi with white truffles.

As Eater NY put it so succinctly last month — "Expect truffle burgers, truffle pizzas, truffletinis, and truffle tastings to land on menus around the city in the coming weeks. Maybe Dominique Ansel will throw us a bone and stuff some truffles in a Cronut."

We'll see what kind of truly inspired truffle dishes come out of this season's mania after the dust settles and the city runs out.

Vladimir Potanin, for his part, won't have to do that kind of soul searching for a while.

Join the conversation about this story »

Oligarchy versus democracy is a very old game, and so are the seven deadly sins. Why exactly men like Vladimir Potanin, Mikhail Prokhorov, Alisher Usmanov, Andrei Melnichenko et al. should calculate that advertising their standard of living should help them keep it is difficult to say. Maybe their pockets are under better control than their appetites. Maybe they believe that advertising profligacy will boost the accounting of their net worth and stave off margin calls.

That’s the point the ancient Athenians grasped with conviction. It’s the point of many of Plato’s and Socrates’s dialogues; of the comedies of Aristophanes; and of the records of the Athens law courts which have come down to us. To those Greeks, if a man displayed an excess of money, or what he did with it – by eating, drinking, betting, having sex, bejewelling his body, house, slaves, children, wives — he was by that very fact to be suspected of a crime against the democracy. The Athenian judgement was both retrospective and prospective: spending money intemperately was evidence that it had been too easily (dishonestly) earned. It was also evidence that state policy (investment, tax, war) would be corruptly influenced to serve such oligarchs’ material and personal interests, to the loss of everyone else.

No Russian disagrees with the Athenians — there are many precedents of men convicted of playing the oligarch from the time of Greek civilization, and from the time of the Russian civilization since 1991. Why then, cautious to an extreme as he usually is, did Potanin arrange recently with a New York city restaurateur by the name of Nello Balan to buy a white truffle weighing four pounds (1.8 kilogrammes)?

The size of the Tuber magnatum pico rather than its taste – the black (Tuber melanosporum) is famously tastier, if less odoriferous than the white, at least across the Piedmont border in France – has contributed to the price demanded of, and reportedly paid by Potanin of $95,000. But did he pay to eat it on the spot in Balan’s eat-house, shaved into omelettes for a dozen or so of Potanin’s feasting friends? Or did the control shareholder of Norilsk Nickel, Russia’s largest mining company, get the truffle bagged for takeaway, so that he could share it with a dozen or more of his business and political associates in Moscow?

At this point, before the Athenian curse and penalty on oligarchs should be brought down on the heads of those Russians who, according to ancient-type democrats, warrant mistrust and condemnation, Potanin’s defence is that there is no evidence he did to the truffle what the New York Post claims. According to Potanin’s spokesman, Zoya Mischenko, Norilsk Nickel doesn’t comment on rumours.

Then there is the reputation of Balan the seller. Food vendors in ancient Athens were notorious blabbermouths. In Balan’s case, London evidence suggests he does a great many things which are exaggerated for the press in order to advertise his line of trade. He reportedly overcharges, for one thing, to attract those who want to appear in public to be indifferent to price.

Balan has been leaking the eating bills of Russian oligarchs before. According to this version from the London Telegraph, Balan spilled the beans on a £29,000 lunch eaten by Roman Abramovich, except that Abramovich denies the bill was his. Note the familiarity of the anonymous Balan employee who calls Abramovich, not only a big spender, but Roman, his first name. If indeed a £4,468 gratuity greased the waiter’s palm, he seems to have mistaken it for intimacy with the rich man.

Balan is currently into advance advertising of a new eatery he’s opening in London. So, modus operandi, plus motive. When his barman and night manager refused to confirm the truffle deal, and referred to their boss, Balan responded by email; “I am at an event now. I will get back to you tomorrow. Very Truly Yours, NELLO.” Then despite the intimacy of his first name, he went silent. So Balan is no longer saying what the New York Post claims he did, and Potanin isn’t either.

Now the New York Post – prop. Rupert Murdoch — is famously unreliable when it comes to Russian oligarchs, or at least those targets of the oligarchs whom the Post can be induced to misreport. Oleg Deripaska, for example – his cuisinary taste has been reported by a fanzine writer in Canada as including self-grown apples. For Deripaska’s interest, the New York Post planted a story about Deripaska’s patron, then his enemy in court, Michael Cherney (Chernoy). That story, now almost two years old, intended perhaps to intimidate witnesesses in the court case, can be readhere.

Deripaska also has motive for attempting to blacken Potanin’s name and using the Post to send a message back to the Kremlin, where the fate of both of them will be decided in December. That’s when President Vladimir Putin will supervise how the secret group of control shareholders in Rusal, the redeemable-share holders, will be paid out. For that group, it may be trebles and tubers all round on December 6.

Mikhail Prokhorov, whose investment position in local basketball and real estate has made the New York media his patsy, also has modus operandi and motive for trying to hurt Potanin by hanging a $95,000 tuber round his neck in public. That might be revenge for Potanin’s role, if he played one, in blackening Prokhorov at Courchevel in January of 2007. That story, and the role played at the time by Nicolas Sarkozy – then in need of cash for his election campaign – can be read here. According to one of the nubile women who were nabbed, Prokhorov was as innocent as Courchevel’s driven snow. The women did nothing more, the eyewtitness claimed, than send Prokhorov to sleep by reading to him from Turgenev, whose novels he kept under his pillows.

Since the collapse of the Soviet regime, a Russian’s privacy has been the jealously guarded constitutional right of everyone. So whether he puts large tubers in his mouth, or his organs into other mouths, is not quite what the Athenians meant by calling him katapugon (κατάπυγον), meaning profligate, intemperate, debauched, degenerate. The US courts have ruled that the Russian oligarchs are public figures, allowing their privates to be speculated about in public print. The Russian view is that so long as they don’t advertise, the oligarchs have the same constitutional right to innocent privacy as everyone else, according to Article 23, section 1. It is worth re-reading what that says: “Everyone shall have the right to privacy, to personal and family secrets, and to protection of one’s honour and good name.”

Advertising is a different story, not because of the purported sinning in private, but because of what this signifies when it is made public.

Then there’s the matter of price. The record for a white Piedmont truffle is $330,000 for a specimen of 1.5 kgs, paid by the Macau casino boss, Stanley Ho, in December 2007. The Guinness Book of Records is a little out of date on this score, finding their big one in Croatia, and way below the Ho price. Ho and other self-advertisers like Damien Hirst and the Hambro family have also paid premiums of comparable amounts, albeit for charity plus publicity.

By that standard, at $52.78 per gram Potanin’s truffle – if indeed he bought it – is, er, a steal.

Join the conversation about this story »