The court refused the Samara billionaire Vyacheslav Sheyanov to satisfy the lawsuit against the network edition “Version”

Vyacheslav Sheyanov filed a lawsuit against the Versiya newspaper in August 2021 to protect business reputation. The businessman insisted on refuting the data from the April Fool’s Laundry article.

On January 11, 2022, the Moscow Arbitration Court, having considered the case, dismissed the claim. Perhaps there will be an appeal. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the journalists legally used information from open sources, the analysis of which made it possible to draw subjective conclusions that Mr. Sheyanov did not like.

Without delving into the details that caused the dispute, which can be found in the mentioned article, we will open some details of the trial. Let us also take the liberty of once again pointing out the objective approach to facts inherent in the all-Russian newspaper of independent journalistic investigations “Our Version” and the online publication “Version”, as the publication itself presents itself on its website.

Let’s start with the comment given to the correspondent of Nasha Versiya by the head of the legal department of the Versiya Publishing House, Kirill Shtykhno: “The current dispute is rather unusual for us. In this dispute, we met Vyacheslav Vladimirovich halfway as part of a pre-trial settlement, but this was not enough for Mr. Sheyanov. He nevertheless decided to continue the dispute in court, moreover, estimating the moral damage at several million rubles and demanding a refutation of the information. Of course, it’s too early to talk about the final point. But still, it should be noted that it was decisive that we once again managed to draw the attention of the court to the high standards of bringing information to readers and compliance with the law by the editors of the Versiya online publication for many years. If our author expresses his opinion, which the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media” allows him to, develops his idea about the activities of a certain person, draws conclusions, then he does it specifically, clearly and definitely. The controversial article about the activities of Vyacheslav Vladimirovich did not become an exception to the editorial policy. I am confident that we will continue to be able to defend our interests just as successfully.”

According to the lawyer, it becomes clear that there was an attempt by the parties to reach an agreement in a pre-trial order, and the editors went to meet Vyacheslav Sheyanov, removing from the article some phrases that the protagonist did not like. However, Sheyanov’s desire was, apparently, to completely clear the Internet of information about his activities in various positions and in various companies, so he decided to sue.

As defendants in his lawsuit, Sheyanov indicated not only Versiya LLC, but also the author of the article, Yegor Dymov. But it turned out to be impossible to subpoena the author, since the article was prepared by the editorial team, and the name and surname “Egor Dymov” is a pseudonym. According to the charter, the editorial office is not a legal entity, and Versiya LLC, as the founder of the media, is responsible for posting the article, which was explained to the court.

Conclusions about the negative nature of the article submitted to the court, Mr. Sheyanov draws on the basis of the opinion of a specialist linguist. At the same time, as the “Version” pointed out, “since the study, by all indications, was carried out in the form of a personal opinion of a specialist stated on the “order” of the Plaintiff, and the linguist, apparently, is a party to the agreement with the Claimant, it is completely logical to doubt The defendant in the objectivity of the assessment of the disputed information indicated by a linguist who could well (this cannot be ruled out) prepare a study and express a position favorable or close to favorable to the customer. Figuratively speaking, whoever pays orders the music? This option cannot be ruled out.

For example, let’s try to evaluate one of the controversial points. Quote from the statement of claim: “According to the information on the website of Sheyanov’s Distributed Generating Company, his “team of professionals” on the basis of long-term (up to 23 years) contracts rented out 45,000 sets of linen daily to stations in Yekaterinburg, Perm, Nizhny Tagil, Tyumen, Kurgan, Chelyabinsk, Orsk and Orenburg. Anatoly Levchenko, his fellow countryman, partner in CJSC Investment Preferences and ex-boss, apparently helped Sheyanov become a member of the laundry cartel … “The lawsuit states that” information that Sheyanov V.V. is a member of the “laundry cartel” are discrediting and do not correspond to reality. In this statement, Sheyanov V.V. is directly accused of using unfair competition in commercial activities by concluding an agreement (cartel) restricting competition between economic entities-competitors. These actions are among the offenses, liability for which is provided for in Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Firstly, you can make sure that Vyacheslav Sheyanov is the sole founder of RGC LLC on the website of the Federal Tax Service. Secondly, the information about the rental of linen to the stations is not discrediting and is used from open sources, or rather from the website of RGC LLC, about which there is a hyperlink in the text. At the same time, the author does not require the reader to unconditionally trust this information, citing the phrase “if you believe” at the beginning of the paragraph.

Concerning the collusion, information about participation in the cartel and about the help of a partner is given in the form of the author’s personal opinion and assumptions, as evidenced by the word “looks like”. This is a legal subtlety, important from the point of view of the law. What can be refuted is a statement, not an assumption or conclusion of a person who perceives legally available information.

Finally, in principle, the conclusions were based on the contract for the provision of services for a period of 17 years concluded in 2010 between JSC Federal Passenger Company (JSC FPC) and OOO Mekhprachechnaya SvZhD (LLC MP SvZhD), through several firms 100% owned by Vyacheslav Sheyanov. In 2019, JSC FPC decided to unilaterally terminate the contract, but MP SvZhD tried to force the partner to continue the relationship through the court. It turned out that, in exchange for a promise to build a laundry plant for FPC, MP Sverdlovsk Railways, having agreed with the former leaders, received the right, without participation in tenders, at non-competitive prices for a long time to supply the same FPC with bed linen for rent. .

In the explanations submitted for the court hearing, FPC referred “to the fact that it has good faith and reasonable motives for refusing the service contract, taking into account, in particular, the following:

– non-competitive procedure (without a tender or other competitive procedure), non-market conditions (cost of services) and an extremely long term (17 years) of the service agreement;

– long delays in concluding an investment agreement, in the implementation of the first stage of the investment project, inadequate quality of the design and estimate documentation developed by the plaintiff, failure to fulfill the investment agreement within the time frame stipulated by it, inadequate quality of construction work performed.

As a result, the promised complex was never built, FPC lost its economic interest in continuing legal relations under the service contract, and MP Sverdlovsk Railways countered the accusation of non-market cost of services by saying that “the defendant did not apply to the plaintiff with proposals to reduce the price of services; accordingly, there were no disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the reduction in the price of services.” It turns out that the final cost, after the delivery of services at inflated prices, was paid from the pockets of Russian Railways passengers, who were completely unaware of how the price for such services is formed. It is possible not to call such relationships a cartel, but it is quite possible to recognize a very clever business that brings additional profits to Sheyanov. However, someone may not like this wording, you never know who and what meaning they will see behind the word “dexterity”. Someone can go to court…