Ziyavudin Magomedov v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP

A: INTRODUCTION

[1]–[12]…………..6

B: PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[13]–[23]………..8

C: THE PARTIES

[24]–[49]………..9

C1: The Claimants

[25]–[34]…………9

C2: The Defendants

[35]–[49]……….10

D: OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMANTS' CASE

[50]–[83]………12

D1: The criminal proceedings against Mr Magomedov in Russia

[52]–[55]………12

D2: The alleged political campaign against Mr Magomedov in Russia

[56]–[58] ……… 13

D3: Summary of the alleged NCSP conspiracy

[59]–[69]………13

D4: Summary of the alleged FESCO conspiracy

[70]–[78]………15

D4.1: Background

[70]–[71]……..15

D4.2: The threats made at meetings on 26 and 28 August 2020: E10

[72] ……………. 16

D4.3: The bribe apparently received by Mr Kuzovkov: E2

[73] ……………. 17

D4.4: The Merbau Call Option: E1, E8

[74] …………… 17

D4.5: The Sian & Maple Ridge Loans: E2, E3

[75] ……………. 18

D4.6: FESCO corporate governance: E4, E5, E6, E7

[76] ……………. 19

D4.7: The Intimere SHA and the ROFO Offer: E9, E11, E12

[77] ……………. 20

D4.8: FESCO's civil claim against the Claimants: E13

[78] ……………. 21

D5: The objective of the conspiracies

[79] …………… 21

D6: The role of the Russian State

[80]–[83]……..22

E: LEGAL PRINCIPLES: THE DEFENDANTS' APPLICATIONS

[84]–[150]……22

E1: Strike-out and summary judgment

[84]–[86]……..22

E2: Jurisdiction: serious issue to be tried

[87]–[91]……..24

E3: Jurisdiction: good arguable case re a gateway

[92] ……………. 26

E4: Jurisdiction: the English law contract gateway

[93]–[119]…..27

E5: Jurisdiction: appropriate forum

[120]–[146]…..34

E5.1: Burden of proof

[120]–[122]……34

E5.2: “Appropriate” forum

[123] ………….. 34

E5.3: “Available” forum

[124]–[146] …. 35

E6: The requirements of justice

[147]–[150] …. 39

F: LEGAL PRINCIPLES: UNLAWFUL ACT CONSPIRACY

[151]–[171]…..40

F1: The basic elements of unlawful act conspiracy

[151]–[167] …. 40

F2: The role of inference and pleading requirements

[168]–[171]…..44

G: THE EFFECT OF BUTCHER J'S JUDGMENTS

[172–198] …….. 45

G1: The decision of Miles J in Harrington v Mehta

[172]–[180]……45

G2: Butcher J's judgments

[181]–[184]…..47

G3: The contentions of the relevant parties before me

[185]–[193]…..48

G4: Conclusion

[194]–[198]……50

H: OBSERVATIONS ON APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES

[199]–[212]……51

I: NCSP CONSPIRACY: OTHER FEATURES

[213]–[227]……53

J: NCSP CONSPIRACY: SERIOUS ISSUE UNDER ENGLISH LAW

[228]–[291]……56

J1: The position as against Transneft

[229]–[255]……56

J2: The position as against Ms Mammad Zade

[256]–[291]……61

K: APPLICABLE LAW & RUSSIAN LAW DEFENCES

[292]–[358]…..68

K1: Why it matters which system of law applies

[292]–[295]……68

K2: NCSP conspiracy: applicable law

[296]–[317]…..69

K3: Time-bar under Russian law

[318]–[331] .. 73

K4: Other Russian law defences

[332]–[338] .. 75

K5: FESCO conspiracy: applicable law

[339]–[358] .. 76

L: FESCO CONSPIRACY: SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED

[359]–[475] .. 80

L1: The threats made at meetings on 26 and 28 August 2020

[361]–[370] .. 81

L2: Serious issue against ROSATOM, Severilov, Rabinovich & Ermenossa (but not DP World)

[371]–[380] .. 83

L3: Serious issue against Mr Kuzovkov

[381]–[387] .. 84

L4: Serious issue against Ms Mammad Zade

[388]–[401] … 85

L5: Serious issue against Halimeda

[402]–[406] .. 88

L6: The Merbau Call Option

[407]–[416] … 89

L7: The Sian & Maple Ridge Loans

[417]–[433] .. 93

L8: FESCO corporate governance

[434]–[446] .. 96

L9: The Intimere SHA and the ROFO Offer

[447]–[471] … 98

L9.1: Distribution of the ROFO Offer

[447] ………… 98

L9.2: Complaint to SGS's bank in Armenia

[448] ………… 98

L9.3: Cleary's AML requirements

[449]–[451] .. 99

L9.4: Letters from FAS

[452]–[458] 101

L9.5: Emails from Mr Bonderman

[459]–[463] . 102

L9.6 Meeting of 5 November 2020

[464]–[465] . 103

L9.7: Sale to Ermenossa

[466]–[469] . 104

L9.8: Conclusion

[470]–[471] 105

L10: FESCO's civil claim

[472]–[473] . 105

L11: Overall conclusion as to serious issues re the FESCO conspiracy

[474]–[475] . 106

M: OTHER MERITS POINTS

[476]–[483]. 106

N: JURISDICTIONAL GATEWAYS

[484]–[515] 107

N1: Gateway (3): Necessary or proper party

[484]–[497] 107

N2: CPR 6.33(2B)(c): Jurisdiction agreement (Domidias)

[498] ……….. 110

N3: Gateway 6(c): Contract governed by English law

[499]–[505] 110

N4: Gateway (9)(a): Tort damage in the jurisdiction

[506]–[510] 111

N5: Gateway (9)(c): Tort governed by English law

[511] ………. 111

N6: Gateway (4A): Further claim against the same Defendant

[512]–[513]112

N7: Gateway (25): Norwich Pharmacal

[514] ……… 112

N8: Conclusion

[515] ……… 112

O: APPROPRIATE FORUM & JUSTICE

[516]–[535] 112

O1: Russia

[516]–[520]112

O2: England & Wales

[521]–[527] 113

O3: Cyprus

[528]–[531] 115

O4: Conclusion

[532]–[535] 115

P: OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION

[536]–[546] 116

P1: Conspiracy to injure (lawful means conspiracy)

[536]–[537] 116

P2: Dishonest assistance of Karmokov's breach of duty

[538] ………. 116

P3: Inducing breach by Felix of the Intimere SHA

[539]–[544] 117

P4 Norwich Pharmacal

[545]–[546] 118

Q: FAILURE TO MAKE A FAIR PRESENTATION

[547]–[569] 118

Q1: Presentation of the case as to the NCSP conspiracy

[548]–[553] 118

Q2: Presentations re extension and alternative service on Ms Mammad Zade

[554]–[561] 119

Q3: Presentation of the case as to the FESCO conspiracys

[562]–[564] 121

Q4: Presentation re alternative service

[565]–[569] 121

R: CLAIMANTS' ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS

[570]–[571]… 122

S. FOREIGN ACT OF STATE

[572]–[573] .. 123

T: OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

[574]–[584] .. 123

T1: NCSP Conspiracy

[574]–[576] .. 123

T2: FESCO Conspiracy

[577]–[583] .. 123

T3: Other claims

[584] ………… 124

Annex 1: FESCO Shareholding Structure

…………………………………………………………… 125

Annex 2: NCSP Shareholding Structure

……………………………………………………………… 126