PrivatBank wins appeal in London court in dispute with ex-owners
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales on October 15 granted the appeal of PrivatBank (Kyiv) against the decision of the court of first instance of December 4 last year on the discrepancy between the jurisdiction of the financial institution's claim against the ex-owners.
"The Court of Appeal has given judgment confirming that the English court has jurisdiction to hear PrivatBank's fraud and conspiracy claims against its former shareholders, Ihor Kolomoisky and Hennadiy Boholiubov. The worldwide freezing order, which has been in place since December 2017, will continue until judgment after trial," according to a report on the bank's website.
"The three Lord Justices of Appeal concluded that the bank has a good arguable case to recover the full $1.9 billion [$3 billion including interest] given in the particulars of claim, and that the worldwide freezing order should remain in place," it says.
"The Court of Appeal ordered that in circumstances where the fraud claim involves what the judge found was fraud and money laundering on an 'epic scale,' the bank's claim should proceed to trial in England," the report reads.
"The Court of Appeal also refused to give the defendants permission to appeal the decision, and has required the defendants to file defenses to the claim by the end of November, meaning the bank can move forward with the proceedings without further delay. A date for the trial will be set by the court in due course," the bank said.
"We are very pleased with the Court of Appeal's judgment, and are ready to move forward with the bank's claims in England. This is an important step towards achieving justice for the bank and the people of Ukraine," PrivatBank CEO Petr Krumphanzl said.
"We were confident that the Court of Appeal would reach the right and just conclusion, and are pleased that it has done so. As the Lord Justices observed, the defendants accepted that there is a good arguable case of fraud against them, and none of them has offered any explanation for what the court described as a "myriad of transactions having no evident commercial logic." It is increasingly difficult to see how the defendants will defend the bank's claims at trial," Richard Lewis, the partner at Hogan Lovells International LLP, stated.