Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Morgan and Olsen. |
IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF DAVID STANDISH AND JOHN MILSOM, RECEIVERS OF THE ASSETS OF MR MUKHTAR ABLYAZOV.
SIXTH REPRESENTATION
Advocate A. J. N. Dessain and Advocate E. B. Drummond for the Representors.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application by Messrs Standish and Milsom, who are receivers appointed by the English Court of certain assets of Mr Mukhtar Ablyazov, pursuant to various receivership orders and the application brought by them, ex parte, is to reflect changes in the English Court orders which were made in July 2013.
2. The jurisdiction for us to make the orders in question is well settled by the earlier applications in these proceedings and in particular one looks at In the matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44. The factual circumstances are set out in that judgment and in subsequent judgments for which reference can be found at [2012] JRC 072 and [2013] JRC 150.
3. What is clear that the circumstances since the original order in 2011 have changed because Mr Ablyazov is a judgment debtor in the sum of approximately US$401 million, with interest, and in the sum awarded by a subsequent judgment of over $1 billion in other proceedings brought by JSC BTA Bank. Although the proceedings before us today are not enforcement proceedings as such, this Court does recognise that the overall purpose of the receivership is to ascertain and preserve the assets of the debtor so that ultimately the judgment debt can be satisfied.
4. The nature of the application before us is that two further Jersey companies associated with Mr Ablyazov have been identified, Eurasia Capital Investment Holdings Limited and Eurasia Capital Investments Limited. We are informed that these companies were the subject of a summary dissolution on the 17th December, 2012, but although they no longer exist there is a bundle of rights which still does exist and which may be utilised by the receivers to identify and preserve other assets of the debtor. It may be that the companies' spectral existence, as Advocate Dessain put it, will be reviewed and indeed revived in a more substantial earthly fashion. But that is down the line after the receivers have had the opportunity of ascertaining further information in relation to these two companies in particular.
5. We had some submissions from Advocate Dessain about the form of undertakings which had been before the Court and he wished to tighten, in some respects, some of those undertakings. We have had put before us a draft order and we are going to adopt that order in its entirety with one particular change and that is that in paragraph 4 of the undertakings provided by the representors the language will now read:-
"4. not to use any information and documentation obtained pursuant to the Order, or any other order of the Royal Court, other than for the purposes of the receivership, or managership (as the case may be) as recognised by the Royal Court, by order of the English Court or for the purposes of obtaining recognition of the Receivership Order in other jurisdictions, save with leave of the Royal Court."
6. There is a further undertaking which Advocate Dessain offered to us on behalf of the receivers. This picks up the point that was raised by the learned Bailiff in his judgment on 31st July, 2013, at paragraphs 22 and 23 and the additional undertaking will be to revert to this Court to seek a specific variation, notwithstanding any technical argument to the contrary, if the purposes of the receivership should change in the future. The precise language of that undertaking will be lodged with the Greffier and if it is necessary to reconvene in that respect at a later stage we will do so.
Authorities
In the matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44.
Standish and Others-v-Eurasisa Logistics Ltd and Others [2012] JRC 072.
Representation of Standish and Milsom re Ablyazov [2013] JRC 150.