JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

There is a real risk of dissipation of trust assets by or at the direction of Mr Pugachev, given the circumstances of the change of trustees, the lack of demonstrated independence of the new trustees, and the actions taken immediately after their appointment. The claimants did not commit material non-disclosure sufficient to justify discharge of the order. The application to discharge WFO2 fails and the freezing order continues.

Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation “Deposit Insurance Agency”; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev; Respondent: Kea Trust Company Limited; Respondent: Finetree Company Limited; Respondent: Bramerton Company Limited; Respondent: Bluering Company Limited; Respondent: Maru Limited; Respondent: Hapori Limited; Respondent: Miharo Limited; Respondent: Arotau Limited; Respondent: Luxury Consulting Limited; Respondent: Victor Sergeyevich Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/trusts/freezing Order) / Application to Discharge/continue Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo2)
Outcome
Application to discharge WFO2 dismissed; freezing order continues.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders (injunctions), Chabra Jurisdiction, Asset Dissipation, Trustee Independence, Non Disclosure in Without Notice Applications
Insolvency Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Freezing Orders (injunctions) Chabra Jurisdiction Asset Dissipation Trustee Independence Non Disclosure in Without Notice Applications

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation “Deposit Insurance Agency”

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Kea Trust Company Limited

Respondent

Finetree Company Limited

Respondent

Bramerton Company Limited

Respondent

Bluering Company Limited

Respondent

Maru Limited

Respondent

Hapori Limited

Respondent

Miharo Limited

Respondent

Arotau Limited

Respondent

Luxury Consulting Limited

Respondent

Victor Sergeyevich Pugachev

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/trusts/freezing Order) / Application to Discharge/continue Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order (WFO2) should be discharged for material non-disclosure or lack of risk of dissipation
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of trust assets by or at the direction of Mr Pugachev
  3. 3 Whether the new trustees are sufficiently independent or under the influence of Mr Pugachev

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real risk of dissipation of trust assets by or at the direction of Mr Pugachev, given the circumstances of the change of trustees, the lack of demonstrated independence of the new trustees, and the actions taken immediately after their appointment. The claimants did not commit material non-disclosure sufficient to justify discharge of the order. The application to discharge WFO2 fails and the freezing order continues.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge WFO2 dismissed; freezing order continues.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order (WFO2) against the new trustees continues in force.
  • Application to discharge for non-disclosure dismissed.