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

Mr Marinichev stated that so far as he was aware RT Capital LLC had not filed a claim with the bailiff seeking the enforcement of the writ of execution. He went on to say that “instead, in around April 2011, it allowed [VMZ], [SWRO] and [RSM] to enter into an agreement” that “the assets previously transferred to [RSM] would not be returned in full and in kind” and “[RSM] was required to pay [VMZ] compensation” before noting that RSM “was insolvent at the time this agreement was signed, and [VMZ], [SWRO], RT Capital LLC and [RSM] were or should have been aware that the compensation payable by [RSM] would not be paid”.

The Claimants’ say about the description of the Settlement Agreement in the Explanations Document:

“This conveyed the meaning that VMZ, SWRO, and RusSpetsMash had knowingly entered into an agreement, and RT Capital had knowingly permitted that agreement, which improperly prevented the VMZ Capital Contribution and the SWRO Capital Contribution from being returned to VMZ and SWRO respectively and that RusSpetsMash had improperly been allowed to retain such property.”

VTBC say that there is nothing factually incorrect in the document in this regard and Mr Marinichev’s note does not bear the imputation alleged.