Mobile Menu
Offshore Cases

Inna Gudavadze Et Al -v- Carlina Overseas Corporation, Azerbaijan (Acg) Limited, Ivane Chkhartishville

June 2012 Injunctions

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

HIGH COURT

BLACK SWAN JURISDICTION - BVI LAW - ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION - WHETHER TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION - PROPER LAW OF TRANSACTION - WHETHER SUBJECT TO BVI LAW OR RUSSIAN LAW - WHETHER RECOVERY AVAILABLE UNDER BVI LAW - WHETHER RECOVERY AVAILABLE UNDER RUSSIAN LAW

The Claimants claim to be the heirs under Georgian law of Badri Patarkatsishville and beneficially entitled to 49 shares in the First Defendant, a BVI registered company called Carlina Overseas Corporation (“Carlina”). These shares were allotted and issued on 10 December 2006 to the Second Defendant, Ivane Chkhartishville who remained at the date of the Judgment, their legal owner. The Claimant’s allege that the Second Defendant held the shares as bare trustees for them. These proceedings were ancillary to proceedings that were ongoing in Georgia and brought under the Court’s Black Swan jurisdiction. No substantive relief was claimed.

On the Second Defendant’s application for summary judgment the Court held that the Claimants had no prospect of sustaining their claim for purely ancillary injunctions preventing dealings with the Carlina shareholdings since they had been charged to Azerbaijan (ACG) Limited and having executed and delivered a blank transfer of shares, the Learned Judge was not able to deal with them. The Court also held that the Claimants had no prospect of establishing that the security granted by the Second Defendant to ACG was granted in breach of trust especially since the Claimant’s original pleading did not even allege that breach. On the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction to grant summary judgment on what in reality was a claim for ancillary relief, the Court held that this case fell within the wording of Civil Procedure Rules 15. The Learned Judge felt that even if he was wrong on that that it is in any event clear that there is not and never will be any material to justify the continuation of the injunction.

 

To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Inna Gudavadze Et Al -v- Carlina Overseas Corporation, Azerbaijan (Acg) Limited, Ivane Chkhartishville

 

Accolades
_

"Few firms can come close to Conyers on one critical metric, and this is the breadth of the client base."
- IFLR1000

EDITOR & HEAD OF LITIGATION BERMUDA

Christian R. Luthi
Tel: +1 441 298 7814
Email: christian.luthi@conyersdill.com


Head of Litigation British virgin islands

Mark J. Forte
Tel: +1 284 852 1113
Email: mark.forte@conyersdill.com


Head of Litigation Cayman Islands

Paul Smith
Tel: +1 345 814 7777
Email: paul.smith@conyersdill.com


HEAD OF THE ASIA DISPUTES & RESTRUCTURING GROUP

Nigel K. Meeson, QC
Tel: +852 2842 9553
Email: nigel.meeson@conyersdill.com

Offshore Cases

Inna Gudavadze Et Al -v- Carlina Overseas Corporation, Azerbaijan (Acg) Limited, Ivane Chkhartishville

01 June 2012

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

HIGH COURT

BLACK SWAN JURISDICTION - BVI LAW - ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION - WHETHER TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION - PROPER LAW OF TRANSACTION - WHETHER SUBJECT TO BVI LAW OR RUSSIAN LAW - WHETHER RECOVERY AVAILABLE UNDER BVI LAW - WHETHER RECOVERY AVAILABLE UNDER RUSSIAN LAW

The Claimants claim to be the heirs under Georgian law of Badri Patarkatsishville and beneficially entitled to 49 shares in the First Defendant, a BVI registered company called Carlina Overseas Corporation (“Carlina”). These shares were allotted and issued on 10 December 2006 to the Second Defendant, Ivane Chkhartishville who remained at the date of the Judgment, their legal owner. The Claimant’s allege that the Second Defendant held the shares as bare trustees for them. These proceedings were ancillary to proceedings that were ongoing in Georgia and brought under the Court’s Black Swan jurisdiction. No substantive relief was claimed.

On the Second Defendant’s application for summary judgment the Court held that the Claimants had no prospect of sustaining their claim for purely ancillary injunctions preventing dealings with the Carlina shareholdings since they had been charged to Azerbaijan (ACG) Limited and having executed and delivered a blank transfer of shares, the Learned Judge was not able to deal with them. The Court also held that the Claimants had no prospect of establishing that the security granted by the Second Defendant to ACG was granted in breach of trust especially since the Claimant’s original pleading did not even allege that breach. On the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction to grant summary judgment on what in reality was a claim for ancillary relief, the Court held that this case fell within the wording of Civil Procedure Rules 15. The Learned Judge felt that even if he was wrong on that that it is in any event clear that there is not and never will be any material to justify the continuation of the injunction.

 

To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Inna Gudavadze Et Al -v- Carlina Overseas Corporation, Azerbaijan (Acg) Limited, Ivane Chkhartishville

 

 

EDITOR & HEAD OF LITIGATION BERMUDA

Christian R. Luthi
Tel.: +1 441 298 7814
Email.: christian.luthi@conyersdill.com


Head of Litigation British virgin islands

Mark J. Forte
Tel.: +1 284 852 1113
Email.: mark.forte@conyersdill.com


Head of Litigation Cayman Islands

Paul Smith
Tel.: +1 345 814 7777
Email.: paul.smith@conyersdill.com


HEAD OF THE ASIA DISPUTES & RESTRUCTURING GROUP

Nigel K. Meeson, Q.C.
Tel.: +852 2842 9553
Email.: nigel.meeson@conyersdill.com