Skip to main content
Press Release

Fieldfisher successfully overturns $2.6 billion Worldwide Freezing Order

23/11/2018

Locations

United Kingdom

Fieldfisher has successfully set aside a $2.6 billion Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) on behalf of its client Mr Igor Kolomoisky and had the case against him struck out

* * * * *

European law firm, Fieldfisher, has successfully set aside a  $2.6 billion Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) on behalf of its client Mr Igor Kolomoisky and had the case against him struck out on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction over him. 

Mr Justice Fancourt has decided:

- To set aside the WFO over Mr Kolomoisky's (and the other Defendants') assets granted in December last year as a result of serious and deliberate non-disclosures and misrepresentations to the court by the Claimant PrivatBank during the hearing at which the WFO was granted (and at which the Defendants were not represented)

- That the English court had no jurisdiction over Mr Kolomoisky (and some of other Defendants), and that the attempt by the Claimant, PrivatBank, to join him to the proceedings was abusive.

- That the case against the remaining Defendants should be stayed.

Commenting on the case, Andrew Lafferty, a partner in Fieldfisher's international disputes team, who led the case for Mr Kolomoisky said:

"We are delighted for our client that the judge has found that the WFO should be set aside and the case struck out as a result of serious and deliberate non-disclosures and misrepresentations to the court by the Claimant, PrivatBank, during the hearing at which the WFO was granted (and at which the Defendants were not represented).  The court found that the WFO should never have been granted and that the Claimant artificially constructed the case to wrongfully seek to join Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Bogolyubov to the proceedings. Our client has always maintained  that the Bank's claims are politically motivated and misconceived, and will fail ." 

"Furthermore, the case raises an important point around jurisdiction.  London is an important legal and litigation centre and, understandably, many wish to litigate here.  However, what the Claimant attempted to do was to artificially construct a case so as to procure that it be heard in London (where the Claimant perceived some litigation advantage, including the possibility of obtaining a WFO).  Mr Justice Fancourt has found that to be impermissible and an abuse of Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Bogolyubov's rights under Article 6 of the Lugano Convention to be sued in his own domicile."

ENDS

Media contact is Chris Bond at chris.bond@fieldfisher.com

 

Sign up to our email digest

Click to subscribe or manage your email preferences.

SUBSCRIBE