Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Billionaire businessman in ownership dispute loses court secrecy protection

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 829
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Moves by Russian billionaire and oligarch Vitaly Orlov to keep secret a worldwide freezing order worth £266m has been recently rejected by the High Court in London. in the latest twist in a dispute over the ownership of a fisheries company being heard in London.

Orlov’s attempts to keep the freezing order secret is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute over the ownership of fisheries company Norebo Group. The freezing order was obtained by former business partner Alexander Tugushev as part of the protracted legal dispute to secure his one third share of the Murmansk based business. It was argued by Orlov’s legal team that Tugushev should not able to reveal details of the global freezing order to related business partners and parties without Orlov’s consent or the permission of the court, claiming that this would effectively be self-incrimination.

Alexander Tugushev, a prominent businessman in the international fishing industry who over the past 30 years has been responsible for founding some of Russias best performing companies in the sector maintained that Orlov had tried to force him out of his share in the Norebo Group of fishing companies. Orlov had claimed privilege on the grounds of self-incrimination, citing a criminal investigation in his native Russia alluding to potential money laundering proceedings. Orlov has also stated his intention to He challenge the jurisdiction of the UK courts in the matter. However in Alexander Tugushev v Vitaly Orlov, Magnus Roth and Andrey Petrik, Judge Mr Justice Teare rejected Orlov’s proposed amendment of the order, originally granted by the High Court in July.

Tugushev commented in a formal statement:


The High Court’s decision marks another positive step in my battle to regain the shares in the Norebo Group that were illegally taken from me. I will continue to fight for my interest in the company and right the wrongs perpetrated by my former business partner.”

In response, a member of Orlov’s legal team said:

To describe this as a significant legal victory is absurd. It was a hearing mainly to clarify an earlier judgment – which the judge recognised was open to interpretation. No costs award was made against Mr Orlov in respect of this clarification. The remainder of the hearing related to timetabling issues. Someone has attempted to dress up day-to-day administrative business of the courts with inaccurate and unjustified hyperbole. This hearing represented an early step in Mr Orlov’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the English courts and the continuation of the freezing order, challenges which he intends to pursue vigorously.”

 

 

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • A recent independent report by London-based litigation analytics specialists Solomonic has highlighted a fall in the number of litigation actions taking place in the UK’s commercial courts, following steady growth in the preceding five previous years. The commercial courts had fast become the court of choice for litigants from Europe and farther afield, but the dual impacts of undecided post-Brexit legislation and the more recent Coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic has seen litigants seek alternative jurisdictions. The Solomonics report indicates that between April 2019 and March 2020, 198 cases were heard in London’s commercial courts, a 9% decline compared to the previous year. Litigants from EU countries formed 13.6% of all litigants, down from 16.5% two years ago. In contrast, statistics compiled by litigation consultants Portland show that the number of litigants from Singapore and Kazakhstan has risen almost 200% since 2018/19. UK... Read More

  • Global tech giant Apple is likely to face a group-action claim over multiple problems and failures of the displays on its popular MacBook Pro range. Apple, one of the ‘big 5’ global technology companies and the first US company to be valued at over $1 trillion, is the defendant in a complaint filed in a California district court that alleges a number of breaches of state and federal consumer protection laws, in addition to fraudulent concealment. Lead claimant Mahan Taleshpour is suing Apple on behalf of American consumers who have purchased a MacBook Pro from the model years of 2016 to date. Taleshpour claims that Apple was aware of - and decided to cover up - a design defect in the connection cable between the MacBook Pro's base and display. It is alleged that this manufacturing defect results in the cable... Read More

  • The ongoing coronavirus Covid-19 crisis continues to impact on UK civil litigation hearings with a recent High Court decision meaning that the largest ever class action claim can proceed remotely. Whilst such remote hearings may be seen as a means to an end during the current lockdown conditions, once such hearings become the ‘new normal’, the impact on how civil litigation claims are conducted is likely to be huge. Read More