Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.
In today’s realities, there often arise situations where debtors cannot fulfill their obligations for reasons one way or another related to the war. In addition, many enterprises are located in the temporarily occupied territory, and their owners do not have access to enterprises at all. In such a case, unfortunately, applying to the debtor with a claim is not always an effective option for protecting the creditor’s rights.
The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.
This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.
Background
Daria Plakhova Freshville, Jenna Burton, Abby Stanglin, Richard Bowles, Nicholas Peck and Warren Feldman, Nardello & Co
This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GIR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Investigations Review. The whole publication is available here.
Sova Capital Ltd (“Sova”) was an FCA authorised and regulated broker. Before it went into Special Administration, Sova provided investment brokerage services to institutional and corporate clients, mostly trading in the Russian market.
Considering the new round of The practice concerning liability of controlling persons for debts of legal entities excluded from the unified state register of legal entities (EGRUL) following a decision from tax authority is being developed. In the past the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation took different views on this matter: from presumption of guilt for the controlling person to obligation of the creditors of the legal entity to monitor possible exclusion of such entity.
Welcome to the October 2022 edition of the HFW Commodities bulletin.
In this extended edition, a number of our partners from across the globe have taken time to reflect on the profound impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the commodities sector. It includes contributions from our offices in Australia, Geneva, London and Singapore, with articles on energy and food security, sanctions, insolvency, regulation, the energy transition and force majeure.
On the back page, you will find details of the latest news and where you can meet the team next.
Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli details a case where the court considered the issue of protecting assets that are subject to a proprietary claim.
A High Court ruling regarding frozen assets can be seen as a positive outcome for both the claimant and potential claimants in future such cases.
The ruling has shown that the courts will be robust when it comes to protecting assets over which a proprietary claim is being made.
Case Background
On 1 August 2022, the English High Court granted the administrators of Petropavlovsk PLC (the “Company”) permission to enter into a sale of its Russian assets to Russian entity UMMC-Invest (the “Proposed Sale”) amidst sanctions concerns.
С 1 апреля 2022 года и до 1 октября 2022 года Правительством РФ введен мораторий на возбуждение дел о банкротстве по заявлениям кредиторов.