VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors

VTB's contract claim based on piercing the corporate veil is unsustainable as a matter of law; permission to amend is refused. The most significant elements of the alleged torts occurred in Russia, so Russian law applies. VTB has not shown a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Malofeev, and there was material non-disclosure by VTB. Permission to serve out is set aside and the worldwide freezing order is discharged.

Parties
Claimant: VTB Capital PLC; First Defendant: Nutritek International Corp; Second Defendant: Marshall Capital Holdings Limited; Third Defendant: Marshall Capital LLC; Fourth Defendant: Konstantin Malofeev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud / Civil Claim / Ruling on Applications to Amend, Set Aside Service Out, and Continue/discharge Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
VTB's applications refused; Defendants' applications granted.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction, Worldwide Freezing Order, Material Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Fraudulent Misrepresentation Conspiracy Piercing the Corporate Veil Jurisdiction Worldwide Freezing Order +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VTB Capital PLC

Claimant

Nutritek International Corp

First Defendant

Marshall Capital Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Marshall Capital LLC

Third Defendant

Konstantin Malofeev

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud / Civil Claim / Ruling on Applications to Amend, Set Aside Service Out, and Continue/discharge Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether VTB can amend its claim to plead a contractual claim against MarCap BVI, MarCap Moscow, and Mr Malofeev by piercing the corporate veil
  2. 2 Whether permission to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the worldwide freezing order against Mr Malofeev should be continued or discharged

Ratio Decidendi

VTB's contract claim based on piercing the corporate veil is unsustainable as a matter of law; permission to amend is refused. The most significant elements of the alleged torts occurred in Russia, so Russian law applies. VTB has not shown a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Malofeev, and there was material non-disclosure by VTB. Permission to serve out is set aside and the worldwide freezing order is discharged.

Court Disposition

VTB's applications refused; Defendants' applications granted.

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to amend Particulars of Claim
  • Setting aside permission to serve proceedings outside jurisdiction