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: 600
  • 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

  • Despite facing criticism from the legal profession since they were updated in the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations in 2013, forthcoming updates to Damages Based Agreements (‘DBA’) are set to make this model of funding for civil litigation claims far more attractive. DBA’s are a type of contingency fee whereby a solicitor or barrister receives a portion (usually a percentage) of their Clients damages in the event of a legal action successfully concluding. This percentage deduction varies depending on the type of claim, and in addition law firms may also claim back disbursements they have incurred in running the case. The updates to the DBA regulations were recently outlined by Sir Rupert Jackson, a former Lord Justice whose name became synonymous with the massive changes to the legal landscape that resulted from April 2013’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (‘LASPO’) –... Read More

  • Reigning European Cup champions and current runaway Premier League leaders Liverpool FC have failed in their bid to register the word ‘Liverpool’ as part of their wider marketing activities. The iconic club, founded in 1892 and with a fan base of millions throughout the world, had made it clear that they only wanted to register ‘Liverpool’ in the context of football-related activity. The Anfield-based club stated that its application was driven by a desire to protect fans from traders selling unauthorised products bearing the club’s name. However, a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has refused their application. Even though other clubs such as Chelsea FC have registered place name trademarks for similar football-related commercial usage, the ICO said that in comparison to their Premier League rivals, the ‘geographical significance’ of Liverpool as a city was far more significant... Read More

  • Three senior managers from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the operators of the Fukushima power plant involved in 2011’s nuclear disaster, have been acquitted of professional negligence charges following a high-profile trial in Japan. The three men - Sakae Muto, 69; Tsunehisa Katsumata, 79; and Ichiro Takekuro, 73 - were accused of professional negligence resulting in death and injury for failing to act on information about the risks from a major tsunami. In their defence, they argued that the data available to them at the time was unreliable. Had they been convicted, the three would have faced up to five years in prison. So far, there’s has been the only criminal trial stemming from the disaster. The Fukushima disaster in March 2011 was the largest since Chernobyl in 1986, and whilst there were no deaths from direct radiation exposure in the immediate... Read More