The KK&P team successfully defended a client against charges of “raiding” in an English court

Since the end of 2023, the KK&P team (Managing Partner Maxim Kulkov, Partner Oleg Kolotilov, Senior Associate Alexandr Karlovskiy, Associates Alexandr Yakovlev, Petr Radzishevskiy, Diana Arkhipova and Paralegal Ekaterina Belashova) have been advising a Client in a case related to a conflict surrounding a major Russian steel producer.

According to the Claimants, who acquired the disputed asset (the plant) in the early 2010s, their shares, which they valued at US$710m, were allegedly seized during a “raider takeover”. In order to substantiate English jurisdiction and increase the chances of enforcement, the Claimants included our Client in the list of Defendants.

The Claimants argued that the alleged “raider seizure” occurred due to the Client’s appeal to law enforcement agencies with a statement about the commission of a crime.

However, there was a weakness in the Claimants’ position in that the Client’s “participation” in the alleged “raider seizure” (which, according to the Claimants, consisted of many allegedly illegal actions that led to the loss of the company’s shares) was limited to this action only, i.e., the Client no longer participated in any court or administrative processes, related to the plant.

During our 1.5 years of work on the case, we prepared several memoranda for the Client on tort law: from joint responsibility to non-trivial issues related to charges of initiating criminal prosecution.

In particular, we pointed out the inconsistency of the Claimants’ accusations against the Client:

• Appeal to law enforcement agencies is a legitimate action. The Claimants had to prove malicious intent in using the specified action for the purpose of causing harm.
• According to the Claimants’ position, the “raider seizure” allegedly consisted of a multitude of illegal actions involving several dozen individuals that took place at different times and in different regions of Russia. At the same time, the Claimants did not prove the existence of a causal relationship between the Client’s appeal to law enforcement agencies and the loss of the plant’s shares taking into account other events that took place after the Client’s appeal to law enforcement agencies.
• Since, according to the Claimants, the “raider seizure” was allegedly carried out as a result of court rulings, in order to establish illegality the Claimants would have to duly challenge these court rulings. In actual fact, the Claimants, in violation of the principle of res judicata, appealed to the English court with a request to review the acts of the Russian courts that had entered into force.

Thanks to our help, the English court rejected the opponents’ demands.