London court dismisses Ingosstrakh's appeal in dispute with BNP Paribas
MOSCOW, May 24 - RAPSI. On Thursday, the London Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by Ingosstrakh-Investments, which disputed the lawfulness of the consideration of BNP Paribas' claims against it in British courts, according to the case material made available to the Russian Legal Information Agency (RAPSI/rapsinews.com).
A London court upheld BNP Paribas bank's claims in November 2011.
At the same time, the court ruled that the bank's dispute with Ingosstrakh Investments and Russian Machines, part of Oleg Deripaska's Basic Element, cannot be considered in any other courts, including Russian ones, due to an arbitration agreement between the bank and Russian Machines.
The dispute centers on a loan guarantee contract signed between BNP Paribas and Russian Machines in October 2008.
The contract was signed to secure a $1.2 billion loan, which BNP Paribas granted to Russian Machines' subsidiary Veleron Holding B.V. in 2007 to acquire a 20-percent stake in Canadian Magna, a leading international car parts vendor.
The guarantee contract stipulated that all disputes between the parties should be heard under the regulations adopted by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). It also states that BNP Paribas is entitled to submit the case to the London High Court of Justice.
In August 2010, the bank filed a lawsuit with the London court, seeking to recover $87,871 million in principal debt, as well as interest and legal expenses.
However, Steptoe & Johnson legal company, the legal representatives of the Russian companies, said the guarantee contract should be deemed null and void.
Ingosstrakh Investments, which manages the share of Russian Machines owned by the Sotsium non-governmental pension fund,filed a lawsuit against BNP Paribas and Russian Machines to invalidate the contract.
In November 2011, the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit. The appeals instance concluded that the plaintiffs claims were groundless and, moreover, the statute of limitations had expired.