Andrey Rogachev v Mikhail Goryainov

Andrey Rogachev v Mikhail Goryainov

The court determined the detailed issues necessary for the parties to calculate the balancing payment due on termination of their joint venture. The true acquisition cost of V177 was found to be approximately US$22m as stated in the Register. The Aminievskoye payment was not returned and must be treated as a drawing by Mr Goryainov. Payments to Mr Kalachev were not to be treated as drawings by Mr Goryainov. The cost of U26 was US$8m with no deduction for a disputed payment order. The loss of funds on Rontek was a joint venture loss. Only cash capital expenditure supported by contemporaneous descriptions in the cash registers is to be allowed for Mr Rogachev, subject to an agreed process....

Parties
Claimant: Andrey Rogachev; Defendant: Mikhail Goryainov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Joint Venture Dispute / Judgment After Trial (accounting and Valuation)
Outcome
Detailed issues determined; final balancing payment to be calculated by parties; consequential hearing ordered for unresolved disputes.
Legal Topics
Joint Venture Termination, Accounting Between Joint Venturers, Valuation of Business Assets, Capital Contributions, Drawings and Profits, Forensic Accounting, Valuation Methodology
Commercial Law Equity Partnership/joint Venture Joint Venture Termination Accounting Between Joint Venturers Valuation of Business Assets Capital Contributions Drawings and Profits +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrey Rogachev

Claimant

Mikhail Goryainov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Joint Venture Dispute / Judgment After Trial (accounting and Valuation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct balancing payment due on termination of the joint venture?
  2. 2 What were the parties' respective contributions to the joint venture?
  3. 3 What sums have each party taken out of the joint venture?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined the detailed issues necessary for the parties to calculate the balancing payment due on termination of their joint venture. The true acquisition cost of V177 was found to be approximately US$22m as stated in the Register. The Aminievskoye payment was not returned and must be treated as a drawing by Mr Goryainov. Payments to Mr Kalachev were not to be treated as drawings by Mr Goryainov. The cost of U26 was US$8m with no deduction for a disputed payment order. The loss of funds on Rontek was a joint venture loss. Only cash capital expenditure supported by contemporaneous descriptions in the cash registers is to be allowed for Mr Rogachev, subject to an agreed process....

Court Disposition

Detailed issues determined; final balancing payment to be calculated by parties; consequential hearing ordered for unresolved disputes.

Orders

  • Parties to calculate and seek to agree the balancing payment in light of this judgment.
  • Any remaining disagreements to be resolved at a consequential hearing, including treatment of two minor payments and possible double-counting in capital expenditure.