€2bn case ‘in flux’ as lawyers seek to drop Russian clients

Vladamir Putin

30 March 2022

A lawsuit involving claims of corporate raiding by an oligarch with close links to Russian president Vladimir Putin is in “a state of flux” after two Irish law firms indicated they wished to withdraw from representing Russian defendants.

The long-running case involves claims billionaire Dmitri Mazepin led a scheme to defraud four companies of their €2bn interest in Togliattiazot (ToAZ), a Russian ammonia producer in which he is a minority shareholder.

The action is being heard in Ireland as one of the defendants, Eurotoaz Ltd, is registered in Dublin.

Mr Mazepin was added to an EU sanctions list last week over the invasion of Ukraine.

The list described the businessman as “a member of the closest circle” of the Russian president. His son, Formula One driver Nikita Mazepin, has been sacked by the Haas racing team.

The Commercial Court heard that both William Fry, which is representing Mr Mazepin, and Arthur Cox, which is acting for other defendants, wished to withdraw. Mr Justice Denis McDonald suspended directions in the case until next month due to what he described as the “strange”, “unprecedented” and “quite extraordinary circumstances”.

Declan McGrath SC, for Mr Mazepin, said his instructing solicitors had reviewed all its Russian clients. “They are winding down all existing mandates in accordance with their existing obligations and won’t accept any new mandates from entities connected with the current Russian regime,” he said.

“These are very unusual circumstances. I think unprecedented in this jurisdiction.”

Mr McGrath said he was unable to say if court ordered deadlines in the case could be met as there “may very well be a change in representation on the part of the defendants”.

“All I can say to the court at the moment is that matters are in a state of flux,” he said.

The lawsuit, which has been ongoing since 2016, is being taken by four firms, Trafalgar Developments, Instantania Holdings, Kamara and Bairiki Inc, all of which are registered in the Caribbean.

Mr Mazepin is one of 13 defendants. As well as representing the oligarch, William Fry also acts for his firm United Chemical Company Uralchem, Uralchem Holding Plc and a Russian lawyer.

Paul Gardiner SC, representing Eurotoaz Ltd and one of its directors, said his instructing solicitors Arthur Cox had informed his clients they would be withdrawing from representing them. This has been accepted by the clients, he said.

In the action, the plaintiffs allege they are the victims of a conspiracy involving so-called “raider attacks”. These involve a raider buying a minority stake and then using illegal and dishonest means, including improper criminal and civil lawsuits, to devalue and wrest control of the company.

The allegations are denied.

The Law Society has opened an online hub to advise solicitors on how to respond to EU the sanctions against Russia and Belarus.

It said solicitors should make compliance with sanctions “a top priority”. The society told solicitors it is a criminal offence to not comply, punishable by a fine of up to €500,000, and failure to do so could also result in severe reputational damage.

If you would like an assessment of a claim, you can use the online form available here without obligation or alternatively you can use the automatic claim calculator.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...