Stein v Chodiev & Ors

Stein v Chodiev & Ors

There was a binding oral agreement in January 2006 between the Claimant and the Trio for a fixed 0.5% success fee on all funds raised, including Trade Finance and the IPO. The Defendants breached this agreement by failing to pay the full fee. No compromise or settlement extinguished the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant is entitled to the balance of the success fee for Trade Finance and damages for the IPO fee.

Parties
Claimant: Kirill Ace Stein; First Defendant: Patokh Chodiev; Second Defendant: Alexander Machkevitch; Third Defendant: Alijan Ibragimov; Fourth Defendant: Mounissa Chodiev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (contract/dispute) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the First, Second, and Third Defendants. Claim dismissed against the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Defendants.
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Success Fees, Breach of Contract, Damages, Agency, Compromise and Settlement
Contract Law Commercial Law Oral Contracts Success Fees Breach of Contract Damages Agency Compromise and Settlement

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirill Ace Stein

Claimant

Patokh Chodiev

First Defendant

Alexander Machkevitch

Second Defendant

Alijan Ibragimov

Third Defendant

Mounissa Chodiev

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (contract/dispute) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there an enforceable oral agreement in January 2006?
  2. 2 Was the 0.5% success fee fixed or discretionary?
  3. 3 Did the 0.5% fee apply to all sums raised, including the IPO?

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding oral agreement in January 2006 between the Claimant and the Trio for a fixed 0.5% success fee on all funds raised, including Trade Finance and the IPO. The Defendants breached this agreement by failing to pay the full fee. No compromise or settlement extinguished the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant is entitled to the balance of the success fee for Trade Finance and damages for the IPO fee.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the First, Second, and Third Defendants. Claim dismissed against the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Defendants.

Orders

  • The First, Second, and Third Defendants shall pay the Claimant US$2.9 million for the balance of the Trade Finance success fee.
  • The First, Second, and Third Defendants shall pay the Claimant US$15.5 million as damages for the IPO success fee.