Fiona Trust Holding Corp & Ors v Privalov & Ors [2007] EWHC 1217 (Comm) (21 May 2007)

Fiona Trust Holding Corp & Ors v Privalov & Ors [2007] EWHC 1217 (Comm) (21 May 2007)

Claimants have established a good arguable case on all three new claims and demonstrated a real risk of dissipation by both Mr. Nikitin and Mr. Skarga. The requirements for further freezing injunctions are met. Existing security does not cover new claims, and delay or alleged non-disclosure do not bar relief.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1217 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: Fiona Trust Holding Corporation & Others; Defendants: Yuri Privalov & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend, Add Parties, and for Freezing Injunctions
Outcome
Applications granted in part
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Bribery, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy to Defraud, Account of Profits, Constructive Trust, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clauses
Commercial Law Fraud Equity Freezing Injunctions Bribery Breach of Fiduciary Duty Conspiracy to Defraud Account of Profits +3 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Trust Holding Corporation & Others

Claimants

Yuri Privalov & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend, Add Parties, and for Freezing Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a good arguable case for new claims (RCB claim, time charter claims, Clarkson Commission claim)
  2. 2 Whether freezing injunctions should be granted against Mr. Nikitin and Mr. Skarga
  3. 3 Whether claimants are over-secured by existing freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants have established a good arguable case on all three new claims and demonstrated a real risk of dissipation by both Mr. Nikitin and Mr. Skarga. The requirements for further freezing injunctions are met. Existing security does not cover new claims, and delay or alleged non-disclosure do not bar relief.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part

Orders

  • Leave to amend statement of case to add RCB claim, time charter claims, and Clarkson Commission claim with associated parties.
  • Freezing injunctions granted against Mr. Nikitin and his companies up to $320 million for time charter claims, $47 million for Clarkson Commission claim, and $5 million for RCB claim.