Photo: Jason Doiy/ ALM 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
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This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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
Dentons Australian Chair Doug Stipanicev Back At Work After Investigation
4 minute read
A&O Shearman Luminary, Former US Co-Chair, to Leave Partnership
Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect in the Coming Week
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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
