Ukraine Wins in a $3 billion Lawsuit over a Eurobond Default
In a recent legal development, Ukraine has won in a lawsuit filed against it by Russia in the…
In a recent judgment, British High Court of Justice ruled on an application for a stay and discharge of undertakings in relation to a worldwide freezing injunction made in light of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The claimants in the proceedings are two state-owned Russian banks seeking a total of US$850 million. One of the banks, is designated as a sanctioned person under the regulations, while the other has not been designated but is claimed to be owned or controlled by a designated person.
Four of the Defendants argued that a money judgment in favor of a sanctioned person is illegal under the regulations, as well as other litigation steps such as payment of costs, security for costs, and damages, and that no licensing grounds under the regulations exist to authorize these acts by the Office of Sanctions Implementation.
The High Court has held that a money judgment in favor of a designated person is not illegal, and that although other litigation steps may be prima facie illegal, they could be licensed under the “reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services” licensing ground or the “extraordinary expenses” licensing ground. Additionally, the judge held that control under Regulation 7 (issued against key Russian political individuals) does not include control exercised by a political office, meaning the second bank is not owned or controlled by a designated person.
As a result, the court has dismissed the application for a stay and discharge of the return date undertakings. However, it has granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal to some of the Defendants due to the significance of their issues and the real prospect of success for the appeal.