Amazon and India's Reliance Industries Feud Over Sale of Retail Chain
Amazon has accused Future Retail of violating a contract by agreeing to be bought out by Reliance.
November 10, 2020 at 05:50 PM
2 minute read
Photo: Jason Doiy/ ALM
Amazon.com Inc. is in the midst of a bitter legal fight with Indian conglomerate Future Group, which in August sold its retail assets for $3.4 billion to Reliance Industries Ltd., owned by Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani.
Amazon, founded by billionaire Jeff Bezos, has argued that the deal breaches agreements reached in 2019 when Amazon invested nearly $200 million in a Future unit. Those agreements included noncompete clauses and a right to first refusal clause that prevented the Indian company from selling its retail assets to anyone on a "restricted persons" list, which included Reliance.
The dispute has been described as a fight between two of the world's wealthiest men—both competing for a larger share of India's retail market. The two companies are vying for a larger share of India's growing e-commerce market.
Amazon brought its case to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), which last month issued an injunction ordering Future Group to put its plans for selling its retail business to Reliance Group on hold pending a final judgment.
A former solicitor general of India appeared for Amazon; Harish Salve QC of Blackstone Chambers appeared for Future Retail; and Singapore lawyer Davinder Singh appeared on behalf of Future Coupons, the unit in which Amazon invested.
But Future Retail claims the SIAC order wasn't binding, and on Nov. 7, it asked the Delhi High Court to order Amazon to stop interfering in its $3.4 billion asset sale deal, arguing that the U.S. company was "misusing" the arbitration order to interfere in the Reliance deal, according to Future's filing with the National Stock Exchange of India.
The filing document also stated that while all entities who were part of the arbitration proceedings have been listed as parties to the New Delhi suit, Future Retail is seeking relief only from Amazon.
Future Group is being advised by the Indian firms Trilegal and Naik Naik & Co. Amazon is represented by Indian firms AZB & Partners and P&A Law Offices, and by Singapore firm WongPartnership.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Hengeler Advises On €7B Baltica 2 Wind Farm Deal Between Ørsted and PGE
2 minute read
A&O Shearman To Lose Another Five Lawyers, Including Madrid Practice Head, to EY
3 minute read
Rosenblatt Breaks Away From RBG, Becomes 40-Strong Standalone Firm
Trending Stories
- 1Million-Dollar Verdict: Broward Jury Sides With Small Business
- 2'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
- 3'Careless Execution' of Presidential Pardons Freed Convicted Sex Trafficker, US Judge Laments
- 4Newsmakers: Littler Elevates Dallas Attorney to Shareholder
- 5South Florida Real Estate Lawyers See More Deals Flow, But Concerns Linger
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
