Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others v JSC BTA Bank
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Stanley Burnton |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 1588 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2011/0518, 0525, 1502 & 1503 |
| Date | 20 December 2011 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
MR JUSTICE TEARE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
Case No: A3/2011/0518, 0525, 1502 & 1503
Charles Béar QC and Benjamin John (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) For the First, Second and Fourth Defendants/Applicants
Thomas Elias (instructed by Peters & Peters) for the Third Defendant/Applicant
Hearing dates : 8 December 2011
Introduction
This is my judgment on the applicant defendants' renewed application for permission to appeal against the orders made by Teare J on 10 February 2011 and 17 May 2011.
The facts
The Claimant is a bank incorporated in Kazakhstan. The essential facts were conveniently set out by the judge in his earlier judgment [2010] EWHC 1779 (Comm) on the bank's application to appoint a receiver over the assets of the first defendant, Mr Ablyazov:
"2. The Claimant ("the Bank") is a bank in Kazakhstan, 75.1% of whose share capital has, since 2 February 2009, been owned by the State of Kazakhstan through a sovereign wealth fund, Samruk-Kazyna. On that date the State effectively took control of the Bank when, according to the evidence of the Bank, there was significant concern as to the ability of the Bank to continue as a going concern. The Bank's accounts for the year ending 31 December 2008 recorded a negative equity of about US$6.1 billion. Its debts, which are said to amount to US$12 billion, are being restructured pursuant to the law of Kazakhstan.
3. The Defendant ("Mr. Ablyazov") is the former chairman of the Bank and is accused by the Bank of "widespread misappropriation of the Bank's funds." It is said that he has treated the Bank "as if it were his own private source of funds". Four claims have now been issued in this jurisdiction against Mr. Ablyazov. The total sum claimed is in excess of US$1.8 billion. Further claims are anticipated which I was told will bring the total sum claimed to US$4 billion.
4. Mr. Ablyazov denies these claims. He states that the claims are an attempt by the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to take control of his assets in support of a politically motivated claim against Mr. Ablyazov, who is a leading figure in Kazakhstan's democratic opposition. His evidence paints a chilling picture of life in Kazakhstan where power resides with the President and the members of his family and close associates, where the rule of law is not respected and where dissent is ruthlessly eliminated. In 2003 Mr. Ablyazov was arrested and imprisoned and his assets seized after what he and others have said was a politically motivated trial. Whilst imprisoned on what he says were "trumped-up" charges he says that he was subjected to mistreatment, torture and an unsuccessful plot to assassinate him and that his assets were "distributed to the President's coterie". He says that political assassination is used in Kazakhstan as a means of silencing opposition and that there was a further attempt to assassinate him in 2004 in Moscow…."
The position of the Bank was summarised by the judge, quoting from the Bank's skeleton argument, as follows: (with references and footnotes omitted):
"18. The Bank's case is a case of fraud and embezzlement on an almost unprecedented scale. Essentially what is alleged is that Mr Ablyazov, on occasion with the assistance of the other Respondents, helped himself to huge amounts of the Bank's cash resources by causing the Bank to make substantial transfers of funds to (or for the benefit of) a considerable number of overseas companies which he secretly owned.
19. Soon after the Respondents left the Bank, the Bank was obliged to undergo an insolvency process because its deficit of assets versus liabilities was in the region of US$16 billion. This was the largest insolvency procedure which the Kazakh Republic has experienced.
20. The insolvency restructuring has now been completed. As part of it, the Bank's creditors have had to write off US$ billions of debt. Those creditors include a number of well-known Western financial institutions, not least the Royal Bank of Scotland (which was itself subject to a similar nationalisation process in the UK at about the same time).
21. The restructuring has been approved in courts across the world, including the Chancery Division of the High Court in London. Under the agreements entered into as part of the restructuring, the Bank is obliged to pursue all possible avenues to recover its losses from those who are believed to have been responsible for those losses. The creditors are entitled to receive 50% of any recoveries.
22. The Bank is obliged to retain professional assistance to help it pursue those responsible for the losses. The Bank's asset recovery process is required to be monitored by a Recovery Sub-Committee, which is a sub-committee of the main Board of the Bank and must include at least one director appointed independently by the Bank's creditors (and in fact includes two such creditor directors). The Bank has an obligation to report regularly to an independent recovery assets auditor and an obligation to justify certain key decisions to that auditor.
23. The 7 actions which the Bank has commenced against one or more of the Respondents in the High Court in England (6 in the Commercial Court and one in the Chancery Division) are part of this recovery exercise. They are pursued on the authority of the new management and pursuant to the Bank's obligations undertaken towards its creditors upon the restructuring. Major beneficiaries of any success in the actions will be the former creditors of the Bank. The suggestion that the actions are part of a pet project of the President to crush...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis S.C.A. v Secretariat of State for the Holy See
...ER (Comm) 1, SC(E)Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 6) [2011] EWHC 1136 (Comm); [2011] 1 WLR 2996; [2011] EWCA Civ 1588, CAJohnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1; [2001] 2 WLR 72; [2001] 1 All ER 481; [2001] 1 BCLC 313, HL(E)Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AM......
-
Jsc Bta Bank (Respondent / Claimant) v Mukhtar Ablyazov
...permission to appeal from that judgment, but he was refused by Jackson LJ on paper, and by Stanley Burnton LJ upon oral renewal, [2011] EWCA Civ 1588. The latter described the proposition, that a suit to enforce the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains could be stayed because the claim was actu......
-
JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov
...purpose has already failed; see [2011] 1 WLR 2996 at paragraphs 49–55. Permission to appeal from that decision was refused; see [2011] EWCA Civ 1588. 15 It was further submitted that the Bank did not play the role of a "dispassionate prosecutor" on this quasi-criminal matter but presented......
-
Alexander Ross Crawford v The Henley Group Pte Ltd
...application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court, Burnton LJ stated in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1588 at [12] that – In relation to the contention that the claim is brought for an improper purpose, in my judgment it is clear that mixed or even pre......
-
BLG Monthly Update - February 2012
...thus could not be an illegitimate collateral purpose. JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 6), [2011] EWHC 1136 (Comm), leave to appeal refused [2011] EWCA Civ 1588. [Links available here and CONFLICT OF LAWS If you're afraid of wolves, don't go into the forest So says the Russian proverb. Or, as Ba......