PJSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors [2018] EWHC 3308 (Ch) (04 December 2018)

PJSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors [2018] EWHC 3308 (Ch) (04 December 2018)

The Bank has a good arguable case for loss up to US$514,965,295, not US$1.91 billion, based on evidence tracing funds and repayments. The worldwide freezing orders are to be varied to reflect this quantum. The English court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention, as claims against English Defendants are sufficiently connected. Applications to set aside or stay proceedings against English and BVI Defendants are refused, but quantum of freezing orders is reduced. No material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge orders.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3308 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC Commercial Bank PrivatBank; First Defendant: Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky; Second Defendant: Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov; Third Defendant: Teamtrend Limited; Fourth Defendant: Trade Point Agro Limited; Fifth Defendant: Collyer Limited; Sixth Defendant: Rossyn Investing Corp; Seventh Defendant: Milbert Ventures Inc; Eighth Defendant: ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud Claim / Interim Applications Regarding Freezing Orders and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Worldwide freezing orders continued but quantum reduced; jurisdiction upheld; applications to set aside or stay proceedings refused.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction, Lis Alibi Pendens, Forum Non Conveniens, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Banking Law Conflict of Laws Worldwide Freezing Orders Jurisdiction Lis Alibi Pendens Forum Non Conveniens +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Commercial Bank PrivatBank

Claimant

Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky

First Defendant

Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov

Second Defendant

Teamtrend Limited

Third Defendant

Trade Point Agro Limited

Fourth Defendant

Collyer Limited

Fifth Defendant

Rossyn Investing Corp

Sixth Defendant

Milbert Ventures Inc

Seventh Defendant

ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud Claim / Interim Applications Regarding Freezing Orders and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank has a good arguable case for loss exceeding US$1.91 billion
  2. 2 Whether worldwide freezing orders should be set aside or varied for non-disclosure or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank has a good arguable case for loss up to US$514,965,295, not US$1.91 billion, based on evidence tracing funds and repayments. The worldwide freezing orders are to be varied to reflect this quantum. The English court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention, as claims against English Defendants are sufficiently connected. Applications to set aside or stay proceedings against English and BVI Defendants are refused, but quantum of freezing orders is reduced. No material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge orders.

Court Disposition

Worldwide freezing orders continued but quantum reduced; jurisdiction upheld; applications to set aside or stay proceedings refused.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing orders varied to US$514,965,295 plus interest
  • Asset disclosure orders continued