C THE BACKGROUND
C THE BACKGROUND
The dispute emerges
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, sanctions were imposed on VTB by, amongst others, the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
On 28 February 2022, JPMS plc notified VTB that it was exercising a right to close out VTB’s transactions under the ISDA Master Agreement, the Client Agreement and a Futures & Options Agreement on basis of an “Event of Default”. The ISDA Master Agreement was terminated on the basis that the Event of Default under the Client Agreement triggered the “cross-default” provisions in the ISDA Master Agreement.
On 24 March 2022:
JPMS plc notified VTB that it had calculated the amount outstanding from VTB under the ISDA Master Agreement as USD 11,975,725, providing supporting material, and stated that it was exercising a right of set-off in relation to this amount.
VTB notified JPMS plc of its calculation of EUR 108,636,829.56 in its favour, providing supporting material.
On 20 April 2022, JPMS plc wrote to VTB informing VTB that the outstanding balance in VTB’s favour following the liquidation of transactions under the Client Agreement was USD 93,308,910.01, against which the USD 11,975,752 had been credited to produce a balance in VTB’s favour of USD 81,333,185,01, which would be paid into a blocked account.
VTB challenged those calculations and provided its calculations on 25 May 2022. It claimed USD 440,653,535.01. VTB’s calculation assumed the correctness of JPMS plc’s USD 11,975,725 figure for the net balance under the ISDA Master Agreement.
On 15 July 2022, JPMCB closed the Correspondent Account in New York, stating that the balance “will continue to be held by J P Morgan … until such time as the applicable sanctions are lifted or all necessary authorizations are granted and the appropriate authorities allowing for the funds to be released”.
On 10 October 2022, JPMCB London informed VTB that it was terminating the UMAA with effect from 18 November 2022, closing the accounts for gold and silver operated under the UMAA, and ceasing to provide any services. The letter stated that where any account contained a residual balance blocked by applicable sanctions, it would continue to be held by JP Morgan “until such time as the applicable sanctions are lifted or the client obtains authorisations from the appropriate authorities for the funds to be released”. There is a dispute as to the efficacy of that letter, with VTB taking the position that it terminated the UMAA by a notice dated 15 May 2024.
- Heading
- A INTRODUCTION
- The parties
- The evidence
- The UMAA
- The Client Agreement
- The ISDA Master Agreement
- The Terms
- The Correspondent Bank Account
- C THE BACKGROUND
- Proceedings in the Russian courts
- D THE “WHOLLY CONTRACTUAL” ANTI-SUIT CLAIMS
- The UMAA and the Client Agreement
- The 2017 Terms
- Which of the JPM Entities are entitled to enforce the 2017 Terms Arbitration Agreement?
- What is the effect of the contractual hierarchy provisions on the status of the 2017 Terms Arbitration Agreement in relation to the various claims brought by VTB?
- The ISDA Master Agreement
- E THE APPLICATION BY A CONTRACTING PARTY TO RESTRAIN CLAIMS AGAINST NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT
- Contractual promises not to sue third parties
- Cases where a third party seeks to enforce a contractual right which is subject to an arbitration agreement
- The special status of arbitration agreements under English law
- The authorities
- The construction argument
- An implied term
- F THE APPLICATION TO RESTRAIN CLAIMS ON THE “VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE” BASIS
- The UMAA and Client Agreement Claims
- The ISDA Claim
- G SHOULD THE COURT REFUSE TO MAKE THE INJUNCTION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION?
- H THE CLAIM FOR AN ANTI-ENFORCEMENT INJUNCTION
- I VTB’S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION
- Forum non conveniens
- Alternative service
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)