RE: Queeld24 Jan 2025 13:28
It was a separate claim to the Eurasia proceedings and, as I understand it, turned on whether or not Mr Vesnin could persuade the court that Ananyiev's bankruptcy could and should be recognised in England (and urgently because otherwise the share certificates may be released and sold). Queeld/Mispare opposed it on the basis that it would/could frustrate access to their certificates (along with some suggestion that the Russian bankruptcy itself was a charade).
But the judge essentially said that the Eurasia proceedings are, for this claim, a separate question and Queeld/Mispare had no "standing" to oppose the recognition itself (in contrast to the question of what happens post-recognition) and that the Russian bankruptcy proceedings were sound. What tripped them up, again as I understand it (not a lawyer), is that they were claiming, on the one hand, not to be nominees for "Ananyiev and his associates" and therefore "strangers" to his bankruptcy, while, on the other, actively trying to oppose the recognition. Vesnin's lawyers said they can't have their cake and eat it -- i.e. why oppose recognition of a bankruptcy that you have no interest in? -- and the judge agreed, saying that if they are really strangers to the bankruptcy, they have no standing to oppose its recognition here.
It's worth reading the judgement. It's quite something. You get the impression the judge saw right through Queeld. It's also interesting that he suggests their attempts to frustrate Vesnin making a legitimate claim also runs counter to what they agreed with Eurasia in the Tomlin Order last year. Towards the end, it's implied that the same judge is going to make an interim ruling on the Eurasia case too, which is due for another hearing in April (which Mr Vesnin, presumably, will be able to now join and argue that the share certificates should form part of the bankruptcy estate). So we should get another one of these court judgements on that soon.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
