Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2023] EWHC 3134 (Comm) (06 December 2023)

Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2023] EWHC 3134 (Comm) (06 December 2023)

The claimants have, on the present material, established a case that passes the threshold of good arguability for a notification injunction against Transneft in relation to the alleged NCSP Conspiracy. There is solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets, particularly in light of Transneft's conduct in relation to asset protection and the letter from Mr Tokarev. It is just and convenient to grant a notification injunction, subject to further submissions on its precise terms.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 3134 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Ziyavudin Magomedov; Claimant: SGS Universal Investment Holdings Limited; Claimant: Intimere Holdings Limited; Claimant: Hellicorp Investments Limited; Claimant: Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation); Claimant: Maple Ridge Limited; Claimant: Wiredfly Investments Limited; Claimant: Smartilicious Consulting Limited; Claimant: Enviartia Consulting Limited; Claimant: Port-Petrovsk Limited; Defendant: TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP; Defendant: TPG Partners VI, LP; Defendant: TPG FOF VI SPV, LP; Defendant: TPG Partners VI-AIV, LP; Defendant: TPG VI Management, LLC; Defendant: TPG Advisors VI, Inc; Defendant: TPG Advisors VI-AIV, Inc; Defendant: Domidias Limited; Defendant: Halimeda International Limited; Defendant: Leyla Mammad Zade; Defendant: Mikhail Rabinovich; Defendant: Ermenossa Investments Limited; Defendant: Konstantin Kuzovkov; Defendant: Felix LP; Defendant: Andrey Severilov; Defendant: Katina Papanikolaou; Defendant: State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom; Defendant: DP World Russia FZCO; Defendant: PJSC Far-Eastern Shipping Company; Defendant: PJSC Transneft; Defendant: Mark Garber; Defendant: Garber Hannam & Partners LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (notification Injunction) / Interlocutory (application for Notification Injunction Against Twentieth Defendant)
Outcome
Notification injunction granted (terms to be finalised after further submissions)
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Notification Injunctions, Asset Dissipation, Conspiracy, Intimidation, Misrepresentation, Dishonest Assistance
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Notification Injunctions Asset Dissipation Conspiracy Intimidation Misrepresentation +1 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 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ziyavudin Magomedov

Claimant

SGS Universal Investment Holdings Limited

Claimant

Intimere Holdings Limited

Claimant

Hellicorp Investments Limited

Claimant

Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation)

Claimant

Maple Ridge Limited

Claimant

Wiredfly Investments Limited

Claimant

Smartilicious Consulting Limited

Claimant

Enviartia Consulting Limited

Claimant

Port-Petrovsk Limited

Claimant

TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP

Defendant

TPG Partners VI, LP

Defendant

TPG FOF VI SPV, LP

Defendant

TPG Partners VI-AIV, LP

Defendant

TPG VI Management, LLC

Defendant

TPG Advisors VI, Inc

Defendant

TPG Advisors VI-AIV, Inc

Defendant

Domidias Limited

Defendant

Halimeda International Limited

Defendant

Leyla Mammad Zade

Defendant

Mikhail Rabinovich

Defendant

Ermenossa Investments Limited

Defendant

Konstantin Kuzovkov

Defendant

Felix LP

Defendant

Andrey Severilov

Defendant

Katina Papanikolaou

Defendant

State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom

Defendant

DP World Russia FZCO

Defendant

PJSC Far-Eastern Shipping Company

Defendant

PJSC Transneft

Defendant

Mark Garber

Defendant

Garber Hannam & Partners LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (notification Injunction) / Interlocutory (application for Notification Injunction Against Twentieth Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a good arguable case for a notification injunction against Transneft in relation to the alleged NCSP Conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Transneft justifying injunctive relief
  3. 3 What is the correct legal test for 'good arguable case' in the context of freezing/notification injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have, on the present material, established a case that passes the threshold of good arguability for a notification injunction against Transneft in relation to the alleged NCSP Conspiracy. There is solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets, particularly in light of Transneft's conduct in relation to asset protection and the letter from Mr Tokarev. It is just and convenient to grant a notification injunction, subject to further submissions on its precise terms.

Court Disposition

Notification injunction granted (terms to be finalised after further submissions)

Orders

  • Notification injunction to be made against Transneft, with terms to be determined after further submissions or agreement.
  • Directions for further evidence and submissions on fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages.