CL-2021-000649 - [2025] EWHC 1333 (Comm)

The First Claimant, Mr Gerasimenko, is a businessman of dual Ukrainian and Russian nationality with a background in the steel industry. He is the ultimate beneficial owner of the other Claimants.

The First Defendant (“VTBC”) is an English company which carried on business in the provision of investment banking services as part of the VTB group of companies (Russia’s second largest financial services group). The VTB group is majority owned and ultimately controlled by the Russian government but VTBC entered administration on 6 December 2022 after sanctions were imposed following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and VTBC is now under the control of its administrators.

The claim concerns the expropriation of the Claimants’ interests in a Russian metallurgy business carried on by a group of companies known as the Red October Group, by means of what is said to be a corporate raid executed at the instigation of, or with the approval and active encouragement of, President Putin and his inner circle. It is referred to by the Claimants as “the Raider Attack”. The use of what may be regarded as partisan definitions is in general unhelpful but as this expression was used during the hearing I will adopt it.

The claim has nothing to do with this jurisdiction save for the fact that VTBC is an English company and is sued as an “anchor defendant”. The Claimants say that this gives the court jurisdiction over the claim against all ten defendants, and the case can only be heard in this jurisdiction because, given the allegations, it is impossible for the Claimants to have a fair trial in Russia.

VTBC bring proceedings for summary judgment against the Claimants. They say that, whether or not there is anything in these claims more generally, there is no basis for a claim against VTBC. If they succeed, the English court has no jurisdiction over the claim against the other nine defendants, because the jurisdiction for the English court to try those claims is parasitic on the jurisdiction established against VTBC. If the summary judgment application fails, I am asked to determine an application for service out of the jurisdiction against the other defendants and various ancillary applications.

The claim has had something of a chequered history, to say the least. A claim form was issued on 5 November 2021, three and a half years ago, naming the first five defendants. On 7 April 2022, the Claimants thought they had served VTBC but it subsequently transpired that service was ineffective because of an Insolvency Act moratorium of which the Claimants were unaware. On 6 December 2022 VTBC went into administration and now acts by its administrators. Various extensions of time were sought and obtained from this court, although there was no attempt to apply for leave to serve out on the other defendants. On 3 February 2023 service was effected on VTBC with the consent of the administrators and an Amended Claim Form issued adding five more defendants to the claim. On 30 June 2023 the Claimants applied for permission to pursue the claim in these proceedings against VTBC notwithstanding the Insolvency Act moratorium, and compromised that application on 9 November 2023 on terms of a moratorium settlement agreement. On 27 November 2023 VTBC filed an Acknowledgement of Service. The history of the claim consists of many applications for extensions of time, although the Claimants point out that each such application was made before time expired.

A second claim was commenced on 31 July 2024, which was issued to protect the limitation position and which mirrors the amended main claim. The parties have agreed that the findings made on VTBC’s summary judgment application will also apply to that claim.