A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 28 May 2015
In this recent judgment of the Commercial Court, a Russian bank ("VTB") has failed in its attempt to recover outstanding monies which it had loaned to a Russian transport company ("Yurganz") in 2008. The case is a useful example of the way in which the English courts approach and decide proceedings governed by foreign law (in this case, Russian law).
VTB brought its claim in England against an English holding company which owned 100% of the shares in Yurganz (the first defendant, "Parline"), a director of Parline domiciled in England, and a Russian individual who was the main beneficial owner of Parline (the "Defendants"). Earlier jurisdictional proceedings had determined that England was the proper forum to bring this Russian claim. VTB loaned RUB1bn to Yurganz in March 2008. By January 2009, Yurganz had defaulted on its monthly interest payments to VTB. No further interest payments were made, and in June 2009 VTB accelerated repayment of the loan, rendering the entire capital sum repayable with default interest accruing. Yurganz subsequently became insolvent in June 2010. Yurganz was throughout the period part of a larger group of companies (the "Group") whose business was the transportation of goods. Yurganz owned the group's rolling stock, which it leased to other Group companies.
VTB contended that the actions of the Defendants caused Yurganz to enter bankruptcy, with the consequence that VTB suffered loss quantifiable as the diminution in the value of its receivables under the loan (which it valued at some RUB700m). In particular, VTB claimed that the Defendants (1) caused Parline to reduce a debt to another Group company, (2) to dispose of 45% of its fixed assets (specifically items of rolling train stock, such as wagons, open-box cars and railway tanks), and (3) to purchase worthless bonds issued by another Group company – all acts, it was claimed, which resulted in Parline becoming balance sheet insolvent.
In rejecting VTB's claim, the judge determined three principal issues:
The judge predictably relied heavily on the parties' expert evidence as to Russian law, preferring the evidence of the Defendants' expert that granting VTB's claim would require a somewhat unconventional application of Russian law. The judge noted, for instance, a lack of Russian case law supporting VTB's primary case that an Article 1064 claim could be brought during the course of a bankruptcy. This decision demonstrates that the English courts will more often than not interpret foreign legislation and case law conservatively. The English courts are understandably reluctant to make decisions based on novel interpretations of another country's laws.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6290
Jonathan Brogden, Aleksandra Chadzynski, Polly Jackson
Julian Bubb Humfryes, Jonathan Brogden
Julian Bubb Humfryes, John Bramhall
Jonathan Brogden, Laura Berry
Jonathan Brogden, Pippa Ellis, Laura Berry, Julian Bubb Humfryes
Jonathan Brogden, Pippa Ellis, Laura Berry
Jonathan Brogden, Pippa Ellis