NOREXPETROLEUMLIMITED, plf-ap, v. LEONARD BLAVATNIK def-res, SIMON KUKES def

3705-3707. NOREXPETROLEUMLIMITED, plf-ap, v. LEONARD BLAVATNIK def-res, SIMON KUKES def — Moskowitz & Book, LLP, New York (Derek T. Ho of counsel), for ap — Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Henry J. Ricardo of counsel), for Leonard Blavatnik, Victor Vekselberg, Access Industries, Inc., and Renova, Inc., res — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York (Daryl A. Libow of counsel), for BP PLC, res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 28, 2015, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered August 28, 2015, which, insofar appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants Leonard Blavatnik, Victor Vekselberg, Access Industries, Inc., Renova, Inc., and BP PLC to dismiss the first amended complaint, unanimously dismissed, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3705-3707. NOREXPETROLEUMLIMITED, plf-ap, v. LEONARD BLAVATNIK def-res, SIMON KUKES def — Moskowitz & Book, LLP, New York (Derek T. Ho of counsel), for ap — Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York (Henry J. Ricardo of counsel), for Leonard Blavatnik, Victor Vekselberg, Access Industries, Inc., and Renova, Inc., res — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York (Daryl A. Libow of counsel), for BP PLC, res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 28, 2015, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered August 28, 2015, which, insofar appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants Leonard Blavatnik, Victor Vekselberg, Access Industries, Inc., Renova, Inc., and BP PLC to dismiss the first amended complaint, unanimously dismissed, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The court properly gave preclusive effect to a Russian decision (the Know- How case), except as to claims postdating that case (e.g., plaintiff’s claim that defendants diverted the profits of nonparty ZAO Yugraneft). Plaintiff’s argument that the DHL documents purporting to show service in the Russian case were inadmissible is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see DiLeo v. Blumberg, 250 AD2d 364, 366 [1st Dept 1998]). Its “evidence” that the DHL envelopes merely contained blank sheets of paper is its unverified complaint in a federal action, not an affidavit from the Norex employee who received the packages. Its expert’s affidavit did not say that Russian law required former defendant OAO Tyumen Oil Company to deliver the Know-How complaint; in addition, defendants submitted a reply affidavit from their expert, saying that a claimant’s failure to serve the statement of claim is not a breach of due process.

NOREXPETROLEUMLIMITED, plf-ap, v. LEONARD BLAVATNIK def-res, SIMON KUKES def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal