Arcelormittal USA LLC v Ruia & Ors

Arcelormittal USA LLC v Ruia & Ors

Amendments relating to Algoma and Canadian judgments are refused as immaterial and lacking real prospect of success. Amendments alleging anti-creditor animus in 2013 are allowed as potentially probative. Amendments clarifying document authenticity and transaction particulars are allowed with modifications. No properly pleaded case against Mr Seifert exists; amendments relating to him are refused.

Parties
Claimant: ArcelorMittal USA LLC; Defendant: Mr Ravi Ruia; Defendant: Mr Prashant Ruia; Defendant: Mr Sushil Baid; Defendant: Mr Andrew Wright; Defendant: Mr Joseph Seifert; Defendant: Mr Uday Kumar Gujadhur; Defendant: Mr Nigel Bell; Defendant: Essar Global Fund Limited; Defendant: Essar Capital Limited; Defendant: Essar Capital Services (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for permission to amend Particulars of Claim allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Conspiracy, Unlawful Means, Fraud, Company Law
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Conspiracy Unlawful Means Fraud Company Law

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ArcelorMittal USA LLC

Claimant

Mr Ravi Ruia

Defendant

Mr Prashant Ruia

Defendant

Mr Sushil Baid

Defendant

Mr Andrew Wright

Defendant

Mr Joseph Seifert

Defendant

Mr Uday Kumar Gujadhur

Defendant

Mr Nigel Bell

Defendant

Essar Global Fund Limited

Defendant

Essar Capital Limited

Defendant

Essar Capital Services (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to Particulars of Claim should be permitted
  2. 2 Whether there is a properly pleaded case against Mr Seifert
  3. 3 Whether references to Canadian judgments are material

Ratio Decidendi

Amendments relating to Algoma and Canadian judgments are refused as immaterial and lacking real prospect of success. Amendments alleging anti-creditor animus in 2013 are allowed as potentially probative. Amendments clarifying document authenticity and transaction particulars are allowed with modifications. No properly pleaded case against Mr Seifert exists; amendments relating to him are refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend Particulars of Claim allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Amendments relating to Algoma and Canadian judgments refused.
  • Amendments alleging anti-creditor animus in 2013 allowed.