Representation of Standish, Milsom and Outen v Eurasisa Logistics Ltd and Nautilus Trust Company Ltd

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeThe Bailiff:
Judgment Date29 March 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] JRC 72
Date29 March 2012

[2012] JRC 72

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Milner.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECOND REPRESENTATION OF DAVID STANDISH AND OTHERS, RECEIVERS OF THE ASSETS OF MR MUKHTAR ABLYAZOV

Between
David Standish, John Milsom, Jeremy Outen
Representors
and
Eurasia Logistics Limited
First Respondent

and

Nautilus Trust Company Limited
Second Respondent

Advocate A. J. N. Dessain for the Representors.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the First and Second Respondents.

Authorities

Representation of Standish and Others [2011] JRC 239A.

Fraud — application by the representor seeking information about the first respondent.

The Bailiff:
1

This is a further application by the representors (“the Receivers”) by which they seek information about the first respondent (“Eurasia Logistics”), which is administered by the second respondent (“Nautilus”), a registered trust company carrying on business in Jersey.

2

The background to the appointment of the Receivers is set out in the previous judgment of the Court dated 23rd December, ([2011] JRC 239A, paragraphs 4 – 12), and we do not propose to repeat it. Suffice it to say that JSC BTA Bank (“the Bank”) is engaged in litigation before the High Court in London against Mr Ablyazov and a number of other defendants. It is alleged that, while he was chairman of the Bank, which is incorporated in Kazakhstan, Mr Ablyazov misappropriated the Bank's funds. At the time of the making of the Receivership Order the claim was in excess of US$1.8 billion.

3

On being satisfied that the freezing and disclosure orders which it had made were insufficient to ensure that Mr Ablyazov did not dissipate his assets pending trial, the High Court appointed the Receivers as receivers of the various assets in which Mr Ablyazov is said to have a beneficial interest.

4

In its previous judgment, this Court recognised the appointment of the Receivers (who are appointed by the High Court and do not act for the Bank) and authorised them to exercise certain powers within Jersey.

Developments since the last order

5

Eurasia Logistics, which is incorporated in Jersey, is one of the 700 or so companies around the world named in the Receivership Order. Following the recognition of their appointment in Jersey, the Receivers wrote on 8th December, 2011, requiring Eurasia Logistics to provide certain information (“the Information”) about itself, including details of its assets and the identity of its ultimate beneficial owner. A similar request was made of Nautilus on 22nd December, 2011.

6

Eurasia Logistics and Nautilus have refused to provide the information on the ground that they do not believe that Eurasia Logistics has anything to do with Mr Ablyazov and it would be wrong to disclose confidential information about a company owned by someone else in circumstances where, so far as they are concerned, Mr Ablyazov has no interest in the company.

7

It is in those circumstances that the Receivers bring the matter back before the Court seeking orders that Eurasia Logistics and Nautilus should within 7 days provide the Information to the Receivers. Although not originally in the prayer of the Representation, the Receivers now also seek further orders against Eurasia Logistics and Nautilus as follows; that they take no steps whatsoever or act upon any instructions in connection with any actual or potential dealings with Eurasia Logistics (and any other Receivership companies) and/or assets within the Receivership and/or documents relating to the same, without the Receivers' express written consent and that they report to the Receivers immediately any attempt to deal with Eurasia Logistics (or any of the Receivership companies) and/or assets of which they become aware, or any requests made to them that may be connected with any such attempts (irrespective of who makes any such requests).

8

On 25th January, 2012, Carey Olsen, on behalf of Eurasia Logistics and Nautilus, stated that Eurasia Logistics and Nautilus would be prepared to reconsider their position upon receipt of substantive answers to Eurasia Logistics' previous enquiries and requests, particularly upon sight of the evidence upon which the Receivers relied in making the assertion that Mr Ablyazov was the ultimate beneficial owner of Eurasia Logistics. So far as Carey Olsen was concerned “the ball is therefore firmly in the Receivers' court”.

9

On 2nd March, Mr Milsom swore a third affidavit. This was intended to update the Court on recent developments in the English proceedings and the Receivers' concern that Mr Ablyazov, or others acting on his behalf, may attempt to dissipate or remove assets subject to the Receivership Order. It also provided information about why there were grounds for believing that Mr Ablyazov was interested in Eurasia Logistics, so that this Court could have comfort that there was a good reason for the inclusion of Eurasia Logistics in the Receivership Order.

10

Dealing first with developments since the making of the Order, the Court was informed that, in November and December 2011, there was a lengthy hearing over many days before Teare J in the High Court to consider the Bank's allegation that Mr Ablyazov was in contempt of court by lying about his assets and failing to disclose his beneficial ownership of certain assets. Mr Ablyazov was represented and was also cross-examined under oath. Teare J handed down his judgment on 16th February, 2012, having circulated a draft judgment on 14th February. In the course of his judgment, the judge noted that Mr Ablyazov did not hold assets in his own name. He was often the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) even though nominees on his behalf were held out as the UBO.

11

Teare J found Mr Ablyazov to be in contempt of court. The judge held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sixth Representation
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 28 August 2013
    ...Authorities In the matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44 . Standish and Others -v- Eurasisa Logistics Ltd and Others [2012] JRC 072 . Representation of Standish and Milsom re Ablyazov [2013] JRC 150 . Contract — further application by the representors as receivers seeking permi......
  • The Third Representation of David Standish, John Milsom; and Jeremy Outen, Receivrs of the Assets of Mr Mukhtar Ablyazov
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 4 October 2013
    ...Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44. David Standish, John Milsom and Jeremy Outen -v- Eurasia Logistics Limited and Nautilus Trust Company Limited [2012] JRC 072. Mubarik -v- Mubarak [2008] JLR 430. Companies (Jersey) Law 1991. Solvalub Limited -v- Match Investments Limited [1996] JLR 361. Rumasa SA......
  • The Fifth Representation of David Standish and John Milsom, Receivers of the Assets of Mukhtar Ablyazov
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 30 July 2013
    ...for the Representors. Authorities In the matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44. Representation of Standish and Others [2012] JRC 072. JSC BTA Bank -v- Mukhtar Ablyazov [2013] EWHC 1979 (Comm). Re AG (Manchester) Limited [2005] JRC 035D. Insolvency Act 1986. Company Director's D......
1 firm's commentaries
  • Appointment By The Jersey Court Of Foreign Receivers As Managers Of A Jersey Company
    • Jersey
    • Mondaq Jersey
    • 8 January 2014
    ...the receivership order" (see David Standish, John Milsom and Jeremy Outen v Eurasia Logistics Limited and Nautilus Trust Company Limited [2012] JRC 072). In their latest application to the Jersey Court, the Receivers brought to its attention various changes made to the original Receivership......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT