Arcelormittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Ltd

Arcelormittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Ltd

There is a strong, well-evidenced risk of dissipation of Essar Steel's assets, including attempted asset stripping and concealment, amounting to conduct analogous to international fraud. The English court has jurisdiction and it is just and convenient to maintain the WFO, search, and Norwich Pharmacal orders to secure enforcement of the arbitral award, given the presence of relevant documents and individuals in England and the ineffectiveness of alternative jurisdictions. Material non-disclosure alleged by respondents does not warrant discharge of the orders.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: ArcelorMittal USA LLC; Defendant/respondent: Essar Steel Limited; Respondent/defendant: Essar Capital Services (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Mr Prashant Ruia; Respondent/defendant: Mr Sushil Baid; Defendant: Mr Joseph Seifert; Defendant: Mr Nicholas Harrold; Defendant: Mr Andrew Wright; Defendant: Mr Nigel Bell; Non Party: Essar Oil (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement/arbitration Related / Post Award Enforcement; Discharge of Interim Orders
Outcome
Orders maintained; applications to discharge refused.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Orders, Search Orders, Norwich Pharmacal Relief, Asset Dissipation, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Jurisdiction, Non Disclosure, Corporate Veil, Fraud
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Worldwide Freezing Orders Search Orders Norwich Pharmacal Relief Asset Dissipation +5 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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ArcelorMittal USA LLC

Claimant/applicant

Essar Steel Limited

Defendant/respondent

Essar Capital Services (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Mr Prashant Ruia

Respondent/defendant

Mr Sushil Baid

Respondent/defendant

Mr Joseph Seifert

Defendant

Mr Nicholas Harrold

Defendant

Mr Andrew Wright

Defendant

Mr Nigel Bell

Defendant

Essar Oil (UK) Limited

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement/arbitration Related / Post Award Enforcement; Discharge of Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order (WFO), search orders, and Norwich Pharmacal orders should be maintained or discharged
  2. 2 Risk of dissipation of assets by Essar Steel and related parties
  3. 3 Jurisdiction and appropriateness of English court intervention in aid of foreign arbitral award enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

There is a strong, well-evidenced risk of dissipation of Essar Steel's assets, including attempted asset stripping and concealment, amounting to conduct analogous to international fraud. The English court has jurisdiction and it is just and convenient to maintain the WFO, search, and Norwich Pharmacal orders to secure enforcement of the arbitral award, given the presence of relevant documents and individuals in England and the ineffectiveness of alternative jurisdictions. Material non-disclosure alleged by respondents does not warrant discharge of the orders.

Court Disposition

Orders maintained; applications to discharge refused.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order against Essar Steel remains in place.
  • Search order against Essar Capital Services (UK) Limited, Prashant Ruia, and Sushil Baid remains in place.