![[2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
J CONCLUSION
For these reasons:
VTB’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction and its application to set aside the Interim ASIs are dismissed.
Final anti-suit injunctions and anti-enforcement injunctions are granted to the Claimants, save for JPM Russia.
Permission for alternative service is granted.
- 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