Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP & Ors
The claimants have, on the present material, shown a case that passes the threshold of good arguability against Transneft for the alleged NCSP conspiracy. There is a real risk of dissipation of assets, particularly in light of evidence of asset redomiciliation and steps taken by Transneft to prevent enforcement against assets that might benefit the claimants. It is just and convenient to grant a notification injunction, subject to tailored terms and further submissions on the form of order and cross-undertaking.
- 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
- 11 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Application (notification Injunction) / Interlocutory Application for Notification Injunction
- Outcome
- Notification injunction granted (terms to be finalised)
- Legal Topics
- Freezing Injunctions, Notification Injunctions, Conspiracy, Asset Dissipation, Jurisdictional Thresholds
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimants have a good arguable case for the alleged NCSP conspiracy against Transneft
- 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Transneft justifying a notification injunction
- 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, shown a case that passes the threshold of good arguability against Transneft for the alleged NCSP conspiracy. There is a real risk of dissipation of assets, particularly in light of evidence of asset redomiciliation and steps taken by Transneft to prevent enforcement against assets that might benefit the claimants. It is just and convenient to grant a notification injunction, subject to tailored terms and further submissions on the form of order and cross-undertaking.
Court Disposition
Notification injunction granted (terms to be finalised)
Orders
- Notification injunction to be granted against PJSC Transneft, with terms to be determined after further submissions.
- Further submissions to be received on the precise terms of the order and on fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment