The plaintiff crept unnoticed

The requirement for the actual destruction of the largest media holding is veiled to "clarify the claims"

Rosneft intends in court to achieve the liquidation of the RBC media holding. This is the only way to interpret the results of the meeting on September 29 in the Moscow Arbitration Court. The judicial analysis began in April, and initially the state -owned companies demanded only the publication of the refutation of the information set forth in the newspaper RBC, on the media holding website and on the air of the TV channel of the same name. From the claims, it follows that the head of Rosneft Igor Sechin disputes the information that he turned to the government with a request to oblige potential buyers of the state -owned company’s state -owned company, which is being prepared for privatization, not to conclude a joint -stock agreement with the BP - the largest minority of Rosneft.

The situation looked routine: in Russia and in the world of companies of any form of ownership, they periodically require the media publication of refutations. The specificity of the Russian judicial system is that, according to the prevailing practice, Rosneft and its representatives of the proceedings from the media do not lose. But before, it was not a question of any material claims.

But at the hearing, the state-owned representative stated his intention to clarify the claims, namely to recover from the defendant (and this is, in addition to the founder of the businesspress LLC, also journalists Timofey Dzyadko, Lyudmila Lyudomila, Maxim Tovkailo and Konstantin Bochkarev) 3.124 billion rubles.

About where such a fantastic figure came from and what can be justified is not yet known to anyone. The updated claims will be sent to the court and the defendant. The next meeting will be held on November 11.

So far, you can only quote TASS, setting out the plaintiff’s position: “If the information contested by the plaintiff is not recognized as not true, then this will inexorably damage the company's reputation.”

The quote on the website of the news agency is given as indirect, but in this form of logic in it is not found. After all, the plaintiff speaks of the onset of probable negative consequences, depending on the decision that the court has yet to be taken. If there is no refutation, then the company's business reputation will be damaged. It directly follows from this design that it is not yet applied. So then what to demand 3.124 billion for?

Of course, it can be assumed that for six months that passed between the filing of the lawsuit and clarifying the requirements, Rosneft summed up financial results, found a loss of more than 3 billion rubles and came to the conclusion that the only reason was the publication of “RBC” ... It is not interesting to develop this thought, because the real task set before Rosneft lawyers, and now before the judgment, and now the court The language does not turn to call compensation for the damage caused by the state -owned company, it was or not. Another thing is obvious: for the Rosneft business 3.124 billion is a trifle. For the Business of RBC (and this is a commercial media holding created to make a profit), the loss of such an amount will mean the inevitable termination of work.

So far, everything looks like dizziness from success. And the court has every opportunity to extend the win -win series of Rosneft, satisfying the claim partially and refusing its material part. But so far the most interesting will be to look at the formalized claims of the state -owned company. Such work of lawyers will be expensive.