Kommersant: OAO Rosneft is required to provide its minority shareholder Alexei Navalny with the minutes of the company’s board of directors meetings for 2009. That was the ruling issued yesterday by the Moscow Arbitration Court And Vedomosti ran a rather biting piece, taking a jab at me over yesterday’s triumphant post: “Soon I will be the first shareholder in Rosneft’s history to possess them [the minutes],” Navalny boasted on his blog. We regret to disappoint the celebrated defender of minority shareholders’ rights. Immediately after the IPO, the company did in fact provide documents to shareholders (Vedomosti has copies of board meeting minutes for 2006–2007). At first, they disclosed material information there, such as the main parameters of the 2007 budget, the terms of Rosneft’s agreement with JPMorgan, the depositary for its GDR program, and so on. But later all the substantive information migrated to appendices that were not provided to shareholders. In the actual minutes, one could learn only the agenda, the names of those present at the meeting, and the voting results on each issue. And a couple of years ago Rosneft stopped providing documents altogether, without explanation. So even Navalny’s victory will not change the situation. The minority shareholder will have to keep litigating, demanding disclosure of information not merely in form, but in substance. Ultimately, the lawsuit will amount to tilting at windmills. To prevent that, the regulator must step in and establish clear standards for disclosure by public companies. Fair enough—the post really was too boastful. Three years ago they did provide the minutes, and only later classified everything. My gleeful self-congratulation was due to the fact that it’s not often you manage to corner the Rosneft people, who sincerely believe that “we can resolve any issue in this country.” But I will never agree with the final passage in my favorite newspaper: "Ultimately, the lawsuit will amount to tilting at windmills. To prevent that, the regulator must step in and establish clear standards for disclosure by public companies". What a wonderfully fresh idea. I can just picture some clever bespectacled fellow staring out the window and reflecting on the importance of Regulators. I’m ready to continue. Magnitsky (Sergei Magnitsky, the lawyer who died in pre-trial detention). The regulator must step in and make sure lawyers are not tortured to death. Luzhkov (Yury Luzhkov, then mayor of Moscow). The regulator must step in and make sure the mayor’s wife cannot be the city’s biggest business operator. Gunvor. The regulator must step in and make sure the nation’s wealth—oil—is sold under transparent rules. Traffic jams. The regulator must step in and establish clear and unambiguous parking rules. Elections. The regulator must step in and stop the bearded Churov (Vladimir Churov, then head of Russia’s Central Election Commission) from rigging elections. Censorship. The regulator must step in, establish clear standards, and abolish Surkov’s Friday editorial meetings (a reference to Kremlin media management under Vladislav Surkov). The Shavenkova case. The regulator must step in and eliminate selective justice. So let’s all sit down together and wait, looking intelligent, for the Regulator to intervene. Because everything else is supposedly “tilting at windmills.” No thanks. I’d rather take a small jigsaw and go start sawing at the legs of the stool this very Regulator is sitting on while enjoying his 131st dessert. Even if the stool is made of iron and the jigsaw is meant for wood.