Blogginlägg skrivet av:
Jag bör nämna att Ruric är förknippad med mycket hög risk. Bolagets verksamhet påverkas både av politisk och finansiell risk. Jag är även på en ren amatörmässig nivå och mina antaganden, beräkningar och slutsatser bör därför tas i beaktning inför detta..
"Ruric äger och utvecklar fastigheter i centrala St Petersburg. Potentialen i bolagets fastighetsprojekt är stor, därmed kan det också finns en betydande uppsida i aktien."
Under senaste tiden har kursen i Ruric drabbats mycket hårt. Bl.a då många investeringar misslyckats, grundaren och styrelseledamoten Nils Nilssons plötsliga bortgång, men framförallt efter att flera felaktiga uppgifter om att Ruric förlorat Apraksin Dvor läckt ut på internet, speciellt i ryska medier. Jag har behållt mitt innehav och länge undrat vad det är som gäller, så jag skickade häromdagen ett mail till VD:n Craig Anderson, dels för att få fram fakta och samtidigt känna honom på pulsen. Idag fick jag ett långt svar... (Tyvärr har jag inte tid att översätta det engelska språket i mailet men jag hoppas det fungerar ändå)
Thank you for your email and I understand your concerns regarding Apraxhin Dvor and the incorrect rumours that are circulating.
The fact that rumours are rife are the main reasons that I recently held a press conference here in St. Petersburg. It was attended by over 40 journalists and 2 TV channels and I spoke for 40 minutes regarding the facts about Apraxhin Dvor, the ongoing court case and dispelling the malicious rumours that are circulating.
We will put the English version of the press conference on the ruric web site as soon as possible, as well as an executive summary of the situation form the beginning to the present.
Please be assured that Ruric, our partners and both sets of legal teams are working very hard to ensure that Ruric is not forced to sell Apraxhin Dvor at a distressed price. I have also held meetings with the Swedish General Consul in St. Petersburg regarding the matter.
Bra, ryktena är falska och som jag visste innan har ärendet fått stor uppmärksamhet i rysk media och den politiska makten har blivit varse om problemet. Informationen kommer snart släppas på Rurics hemsida, men tänkte posta allt här då jag fått ta del av materialet innan. Här kommer svar på de frågor jag hade i ärendet:
Question 1: How far has this thing gone and what are our chances on the appeal against the third court rule, with two wins from first and second?
On Thursday of last week ruric won the right to appeal against the decision of the court. The appeal will be held on July 7th 2011. Ruric won the first two court cases (KUGI appealed twice). The Judge in the third court case decided that the case needed to be reviewed again and sent it back to the beginning of the arbitration process. At the next court case the Judge rather quickly decided to award the case to KUGI, to which Ruric immediately and vigorously appealed and which will be heard on July 7th 2011. I can not predict the outcome, as I am already shocked and dismayed by the previous decision. This is why I held the press conference and have raised the matter to political levels. However, I am more than optimistic that we will prevail.
Question 2: There are also rumours that Glavstroy has begun talks with all owners of premisis at Apraksin – have ruric got any offers and how far away from each other are you?
Glavstroi have indeed been in discussions and have concluded settlements with some owners (but not all) in Apraxhin Dvor. We have tried to open discussions with Glavstroi regarding the matter, but unfortunately they successfully (and miraculously) applied to the court to act in accordance with KUGI against Ruric and as such it is in their best interest for Ruric to lose the case and be awarded the properties by the city for a nominal fee. The owners that have sold have been offered between $500 and $750 USD per square meter. Ruric has a value of $2,500 to $3,000 per square metre for it's 18,000 square metres of properties. Please be assured that I am doing all that is 'legally possible' to defend Ruric's assets and get a fair price for the buildings.
Question 3: Finally, are Apraksin right totally lost and/or will we be getting anything from what we invested? And how does the timetable looks for this case to end from what you know today?
Ruric owns 65% of the assets and our partners own 35%. Ruric has invested a total of $40 Million USD in Apraxhin Dvor and the buildings are, without a doubt, the best in the area. They are also 'protected buildings' which means that they can not be knocked down or altered in any substantial way. This means that the developer Glavstroi can not demolish them and, it seems, wish to obtain them at the lowest possible price. If Ruric win the court case on the 7th July we will once again try to establish communications with Glavstroi with a view to negotiating a proper settlement within 2 months. If Ruric lose the court case on July 7th we will once again appeal.
I have attached a full summary of the situation for you and will continue to do my utmost to defend the assets, win the case and settle for a fair and reasonable price.
With Best Regards.
Vi har alltså fått ett datum nu, då Rurics överklagan gick igenom i torsdags, ärendet tas alltså upp den 7 juli! Craig kommer kriga för att få tillbaka det man satsat i runda slängor och läser man det dokument som jag fick bifogat och som jag kommer att kopiera in nedan, så tycker jag att Ruric inte bör ligga alltför dåligt till i domstolen, samt framtida förhandlingar med Glavstroi vid vinnande överklagan.
Nedan kommer jag nu släppa hela historien kring Apraksin Dvor, från början till slut, och ordagrant från dokumentet jag tagit del av;
Summary of Apraksin Dvor reconstruction process
On November 11, 2003 was signed Order of St. Petersburg Administration “on the design and reconstruction of the building located at address: Central Administrative District, Apraksin Dvor, buildings 15/16 for office use purpose”.
On January 11, 2004 between the Committee on City Property Management of St. Petersburg (KUGI) and Inkom LLC (a Ruric AB company) was signed agreement number 00 - (S) 004 299 (10) on investment activities according to which Inkom, as an investment company, was obliged
at its own funds to perform the design and reconstruction works in regard of buildings located at: 28-30, Sadovaya str., buildings 15-16, Saint-Petersburg. In the agreement it was stipulated that the signed act of the state commission on acceptance of the object and a protocol on investment
project development are the basis for registration of property rights of the investor in the determined manner. The due term of project implementation was set up as June 12, 2006.
Ruric AB started the reconstruction process immediately after agreement was signed. Works on reconstruction were completed in July 2007. During implementation of investment project Inkom carried out reconstruction of the object and timely transferred money on the city
infrastructure development to account of St. Petersburg Government. Also in a timely manner were acquired on its own expense and transferred to the city apartments for relocation for 58 people. The total investment amount was about $ 40 million.
During execution of its agreement obligations Ruric AB faced with serious violation of agreement terms by KUGI which is the transfer of reconstructed object was carried out with violations and not in full.
When transfer of the object for reconstruction took place it was revealed that on the territory of the facility was fire station which was not provided by the investment agreement terms or technical documentation for the tender. In a letter dated 21.09.2004 № 56/in-04 Ruric AB has
reported to KUGI that the premises were transferred with fire department 37 what was not provided by investment agreement and as a result it prevents the normal way of works on reconstruction. In a response letter dated 27.10.2004 № 30652-32 KUGI reported to Inkom that
the most appropriate option is to leave the fire station at its current location and asked Inkom to provide their opinion on the matter. In a letter dated 19.01.2005 № 27/IN-05 Inkom repeatedly asked KUGI to evict the fire department from the reconstructed premises and noted that the
amount of Inkom contributions to the city budget were calculated considering that premises were transferred vacant. In its letter dated 02.03.2005 № 3146-32 KUGI suggested Inkom to implement reconstruction of new fire station on its own expense with a view to following fire
station relocation. Inkom accepted the offer and began design development for the reconstruction of fire station at its own expense, but the government of St. Petersburg did not take any official decision on fire station relocation what is considered as essential obstacle for performance of
In a letter dated 28.03.2005 № 67/IN-05 Inkom asked the vice-governor of St. Petersburg to organize a work meeting on the issue of fire station relocation.
On the basis of the letter Ruric AB on September 30, 2009 took place meeting with the participation of St. Petersburg Governor V.I. Matvienko. As a result of that meeting was a
decision to allocate land plot for the relocation of the firehouse which lately was not fulfilled. There is correspondence between the Ruric AB and various executive officials of St. Petersburg, including KUGI in regard of this problem. Ruric AB had no chance to resolve the problem on its
own as he had no legal grounds to relocate the fire station without appropriate government orders. However KUGI stated that they have no obligations in order to evict the fire station.
Due to relocation problems Ruric AB could not complete the reconstruction in due time fixed in the agreement. However during the reconstruction period Ruric AB was repeatedly sending letters requesting changes in the order of the administration of St. Petersburg as of 11.11.2003 №
2633 in part related to extension of investment agreement and in part related to offset of the final payment towards the costs incurred for the construction of a new building for the fire station. Ruric AB has performed works on design development on its own and additional investment
amount spent totaled in amount of 1 118 047 rubles. However, despite actions of Ruric AB no actions from KUGI side in order to fix breach of agreement were performed. Permission for placing the object into operation by State Construction Service was not issued.
By resolution of the Government of St. Petersburg as of 03.07.07 № 748 "On recognizing the government regulations of St. Petersburg as of 11.11.03 № 2633 as not valid” KUGI was asked to terminate the agreement in the determined manner.
Ruric AB in a letter dated 25.07.2007 № 51 which was sent to the Head of Central District has requested to resolve issue on signing the acceptance act of the object after the reconstruction since the latter was signed by all representatives of shareholders, but it was not signed by the Head of Construction Department of Central Administrative District of Saint Petersburg. In response to this letter the administration of the Central District of St. Petersburg reported on possibility of signing this Act after solving issue about relocation of fire station.
On 30.08.2007 by the request of KUGI the defendant has sent a copy of set of documents collected and obtained during the reconstruction of the disputed building. By the same letter Inkom informed about completion of the object reconstruction. Meanwhile, as it was pointed out by the court, the state acceptance committee for acceptance of object into operation was not formed due to issue of relocation of the fire station was not resolved.
Numerous negotiations and official correspondence between Ruric AB and the Government of St. Petersburg did not lead to the expected result: an order to relocate the fire station was not signed, the act of commissioning is not approved.
On July 29, 2009 the Committee on City Property Management of St. Petersburg filed to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region a claim against Ruric AB to terminate the agreement on investment activities as well as to return debt payments for infrastructure development in amount of 32 622 661 rubles and penalties in amount of 95 286 821 rubles.
On August 03, 2009 as per claim and in accordance with court ruling the court case number A56-48998/2009 was initiated.
As per court decision on March 11, 2010 Glavstroy-SPb was involved to participate in the proceedings as a third party without independent claims with respect to the subject matter. This company announced itself as a city government partner and a strategic investor for the
development of the territory of Apraksin Dvor. The analyses of court cases showed that Glavstroy-SPb operates together with KUGI against companies making investments to the central district of St. Petersburg and looking for possibility to cancel investment agreements in court. In this exact court case actions of Glavstroy-SPb were directed solely to terminate the existing agreement with Ruric AB which was agreed with KUGI.
On July 09, 2010 having considered case materials and having heard the views of lawyers of all sides, the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region made a decision not to fulfill the claims of KUGI. This decision was appealed to the superior court by KUGI and Glavstroy-SPb.
On October 18, 2010 the Thirteenth Appeal Court considered the complaint of KUGI and Glavstroy-SPb and issued the following ruling: the decision of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region as of July 09, 2010 on case number A56-48998/2009 to remain
unchanged, the appeal to leave without satisfaction. The decision came into legal force. KUGI and Glavstroy-SPb filed a complaint to the Federal Arbitration Court of the Northwest District.
On February 21, 2011 the Federal Arbitration Court of the Northwest District made a decision to cancel decisions of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region as of 09.07.2010 and the decision of the Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court as of 18.10.2010 on case number A56-48998/2009 in part related to agreement termination. This part of case was sent for a new court proceeding to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region. At the same time, it was stated that the courts have not investigated the possibility of both parties to fulfill the agreement obligations even the fire station is still located at its place.
On April 20, 2011 the court of first instance which is the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region made a decision to terminate the agreement on investment activities pointing out that the presence of fire station on the territory of object was not an obstacle for reconstruction works.
On May 17, 2011 Ruric AB filed complaint on the earlier Arbitration Court ruling.
Förstår ni vad jag menar? Vi skall gå vinnande ur detta och sälja till KUGI som nu ska ansvara för området - Men vi skall ha en rimlig ersättning för investerat kapital också (ca $40.000.000)!
Men vad gör vi tills ärendet utreds och avslutas? Jo vi några triggers som kan ta kursen till nya höjder:
Tänk på att värdet av Magnus, Gustaf och Oscar ligger kring 1,90 kr/aktie - det betyder med dagens stängningkurs på 1,92 så anses Ruric ha förlorat alla övriga fastighetsprojekt :) Det är ganska sjukt och påvisar tydligt att Ruric är undervärderat! Jag är beredd att ta risken nu..
Denna text är skriven av vårt forums användare. Det är insändaren - och inte REDEYE - som ansvarar för inläggets innehåll. Det är således den enskilda signaturen som är ansvarig för inläggets innehåll och trovärdighet. Läsarna av inlägg uppmanas att på egen hand kritiskt analysera och granska informationen.