Lee Chu v Kin Ming Je & Anor
[2024] EWHC 90 (Ch)
Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors
27 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2655 (Comm)
High Court
Someone sued a bunch of people for conspiring to steal their assets. The judge said there wasn't enough proof that the accused would hide their money, so they didn't get punished yet. It's a complicated case and needs more investigation.
Key Facts
- •Claimants allege two conspiracies: the 'NCSP Conspiracy' and the 'FESCO Conspiracy'.
- •The FESCO Conspiracy involves alleged breaches of option agreements, a Right of First Offer (ROFO), and exclusion from FESCO governance.
- •ZiYavudin Magomedov (ZM), the First Claimant, is a Russian businessman whose assets were subject to arrest and confiscation in Russia.
- •TPG, a US private equity firm, invested in ZM's FESCO stake through a joint venture.
- •Legal proceedings against ZM in Russia resulted in the confiscation of his assets, including his FESCO shares.
- •The Claimants argue that the Defendants conspired to expropriate ZM's assets for the benefit of the Russian state.
- •Various legal proceedings are ongoing in different jurisdictions related to the alleged conspiracies and asset confiscations.
Legal Principles
For freezing orders, the claimant must show a good arguable case, a real risk of judgment going unsatisfied due to asset dissipation, and that granting the injunction is just and appropriate.
Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft GmbH, Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Morimoto, ArcelorMittal USA LLC v Ruia, etc.
A 'good arguable case' is more than barely capable of serious argument but doesn't require a better than 50% chance of success.
Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft GmbH
Risk of dissipation must be established by solid evidence, not mere inference or assertion; it must be assessed against each respondent separately.
Fundo Soberano de Angola v dos Santos
The test for a notification injunction is the same as for a worldwide freezing order.
Holyoake v Candy
Outcomes
Injunctions refused for all respondent defendants.
Insufficient evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation despite arguable claims of conspiracy. Defendants presented credible defenses, and the Claimants' actions indicated a lack of genuine concern about dissipation.
Good arguable case found against Mr. Rabinovich, Ermenossa, and Mr. Severilov regarding coordination and threats related to a hostile takeover.
Sufficient evidence to support the claim, though not sufficient to prove the claim will succeed at trial.
No good arguable case found against Mr. Garber and GHP; evidence of conspiracy weak and insufficient.
Lack of plausible evidence to support the allegations of conspiracy and breach of duty.
No good arguable case found against Mr. Kuzovkov; evidence of bribery insufficient.
Key evidence regarding bribery was inadmissible due to late disclosure and lack of verification, rendering the case weak.
Notification injunctions refused for Halimeda and FESCO.
Lack of solid evidence showing risk of asset dissipation; the actions of the defendants did not indicate a likelihood of asset dissipation.
Notification injunction refused for ROSATOM.
ROSATOM's assets are largely in Russia and its nature as a state corporation makes asset dissipation unlikely.