Court reduces Rosneft’s claim against RBC eight-thousand-fold
Moscow, December 12, 2016 - RBC OJSC (Moscow exchange: RBCM) informs that on December 12, the Moscow Arbitration Court held a session regarding Rosneft’s claim against RBC group of companies for reputational damage estimated at RUB 3.179bn.
The court ruled partially in favor of Rosneft: RBC, its reporters Timofei Dzyadko, Maxim Tovkailo, Lyudmila Podobedova, and TV channel host Konstantin Bochkarev were to pay Rosneft RUB 390,000 (approx. USD 6,925). The court also ruled to remove the article titled “Sechin seeks governmental protection for Rosneft from BP,” which became the subject of the lawsuit, and to publish a retraction. In addition, each reporter was to pay an additional sum of RUB 4,500 (approx. USD 79).
Read more about the court session in the article RBC to pay 8 thousand times less than the original claim by Rosneft: court ruling.
“We are waiting for official documents with the court’s decision. RBC group of companies, together with Gridnev & Partners Bar Association representing RBC’s interests in court, will review the decision together with journalists’ lawyers, and then we will be able to give a joint balanced assessment and decide whether to challenge the court’s decision,” says RBC’s General Director Nikolay Molibog.
Story of Rosneft estimating reputational damage
Rosneft justified the reputational damage to be RUB 3.179bn by studying the impact of the spread of the RBC publication titled “Sechin seeks governmental protection for Rosneft from BP.” (April 11, 2016). The study has been carried out by Professional Evaluation Center LLC. In analyzing the potential losses of Rosneft, the following potential scenarios have been studied: termination of the joint contracts by BP as a result of the publication, raising the overall level of Rosneft’s risks associated with its interaction with contractors, including BP. On November 8, RBC issued an article where it openly denied all allegations of causing reputational damage and provided a detailed explanation of why the claim was inconsistent.