View Notes - VTB Capital plc v Nutritek from LAW 203 at London School of Economics. Company law - Piercing corporate veil - Whether puppeteer to be regarded as party to puppet company's contract. In the BVI, following the refusal of the Supreme Court to permit the English Court to accept jurisdiction, the Claimant argued that as between the BVI and any competing jurisdiction (principally Russia), BVI was the more appropriate forum. h�bbd``b`VY@��H����J�w+H"H�:����`�20�F�gT�` e JSC VTB Debt Centre (“VTBDC”) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow. Home News VTB CAPITAL PLC -V- NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS. In dismissing the appeal, the Court has left open (at least as […] %%EOF endstream endobj 176 0 obj <> endobj 177 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/XObject<>>>/Rotate 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 178 0 obj <>stream 935 CA #  (1953) 1 AER 615 #  Grounds for lifting of the Corporate Veil, available at http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.in/2008/11/grounds-for-lifting-corporate-veil.html, last accessed 15th March,2013 # [2012] EWCA Civ 808 # [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam para159) # [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm) # [2011] EWHC 3281(Comm) #  Corporate Personality & Piercing of the Corporate Veil, Madhavander Chauhan, available at jurisonline.in, last accessed 20th March, 2013. Hence if construed objectively since a contract creates rights and obligation only between parties to it Nutritek is a completely separate entity hence the corporate veil cannot be lifted. In this case even if the corporate veil is removed VTB has not been able to show that Nutritek is the controller in the present contract and has used RAP as just a puppet to perpetrate the fraud. The Supreme Court's decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others, handed down on Wednesday 6 February, is important for a number of reasons.. Firstly, it reinforces the difficulty for a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil. . While we will discuss the case in more detail in the coming days, one specific point is noteworthy. VTB Capital plc is a bank incorporated and regulated in England, but majority-owned by a Russian state bank. Though the courts have repeatedly laid down various grounds for piercing of the corporate veil it is still very ambiguous, as to how the court should decide in a particular case. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Muzammil Hassan, 4th year student, B.A LLB (Hons), NALSAR University of Law. It lent $225 million to Russagroprom LLC (RAP), incorporated in Russia, under a facility agreement governed by English law. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp is similar to these court cases: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, Benedetti v Sawiris, Wallersteiner v Moir and more. Articles Already Published in other websites. VTB vs Nutritek 1. The lifting of corporate veil of parties which are part of the transaction just because of the doctrine of privity of contract should not be made too easy as it does not seem to be a very common and usual way of misuse of the separate legal entity by companies. In Woolfson v. Strathclycde Regional Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC. The appellant, VTB Capital plc (“VTB”), is incorporated and registered, and authorised and regulated as a bank, in England. The courts have upheld in judgments of Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp. v. Stepanovs and Alliance Bank JSW v. Aquanta Corp. that there is no good reason of principle or jurisprudence why a victim cannot enforce an agreement between him and the puppet company who at all times is pulling the strings. The United Kingdom Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal against this decision. VTB CAPITAL PLC -V- NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS. It considers the issues of piercing the corporate veil and whether the English courts were the appropriate forum for the dispute. The courts have held that only in cases where the circumstances exist to show that the company is being used as a mere façade to conceal the true facts, this was further upheld in Adams v. Cape industries. %PDF-1.5 %���� London partner Wayne McArdle and associate Gareth Jones are the authors of "Prest v Petrodel Resources and VTB Capital v Nutritek: a Robust Corporate Veil" [PDF] published in the September 2013 issue of Business Law International.. September 27, 2013. Daniel Toledano QC, Jamie Goldsmith and Alexander Brown appeared for Nutritek (the first defendant) in successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear claims worth around $350 million. VTB is majority owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”). Clare Arthurs and Alex Fox reflect on the Supreme Court judgment in Nutritek The Supreme Court clearly declined to extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil may be pierced. Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] WLR(D) 181, WLRD, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 313, [2012] 2 CLC 431, [2012] 2 BCLC 437) The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others – WLR Daily. The statutory provisions of the Indian and the English law are also quite similar regarding the issue. Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA 20-Jun-2012 The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. 6. VTB Capital PLC -v- Nutritek International Corp et al Claim No. In researcher’s view this is the right approach as there always should be scope for accommodation according to the circumstances of each and every particular case, because for maintaining the right balance between the public welfare at large and the corporate interests of businessmen, every case must be looked into separately. It depends on the circumstances of each and every case. VTB Capital PLC V. Nutritek International Corp & Ors. The case of VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others will be mentioned for years to come, says Fried Frank partner Justin Michaelson Not many things are certain in litigation, but one prediction I can make with confidence is that we will be citing the case of VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International […] 06 Feb 2013. Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. VTB CAPITAL PLC v NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS [2012] Lloyd's Rep. Plus 60 COURT OF APPEAL Before Lord Justice Lloyd, Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Aikens. VTB Capital pic (1) Nutritek International Corp (a company incorporated in the BVI) (2) Marshall Capital Holdings Limited (a company incorporated in the BVI) (3) Marshall Capital LLC (a company incorporated in the Russia) (4) Konstantin Malofeev Appearances: Mr Stephen Rubin QC and Mr Robert Nader for the Applicant, the Fourth Defendant [1] www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm # Salomon v. A Salomon & Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22 # Corporate Personality & Piercing of the Corporate Veil, Madhavander Chauhan, available at jurisonline.in, last accessed 20th March, 2013. It varies on a case to case basis, there can no hard and a fast rule regarding this. The concept in its very basic sense means that a company is … VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court Posted February 6th, 2013 in appeals , banking , freezing injunctions , law reports , loans , misrepresentation , service out of jurisdiction , Supreme Court by sally I would like to focus on the word ‘only’, it is ‘only’ when the company is being used as a tool to cover the wrong doings of another, however in the present case one cannot really see how RAP is being used by Nutriek as a cloak, nor has it been completely been proven by VTB that in fact there was a relation between the two companies, no link whatsoever can be seen in the company structure to prove the same. Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept It is owned and operated from Russia. Salomon v. ASalomon & Co. is an authority since the beginning in India on the issue. Click here LORD MANCE Introduction 1. In this case the court has toughened the doctrine of privity of contract. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp 2013 UKSC 5 - Case concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud. 175 0 obj <> endobj Nutritek is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). In researcher’s view it is a good decision as it does not satisfy the tests laid down by the courts in other judgments and there is no principle agent agreement. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.. 0 # 1962 AER 442 #  Sir Dinshaw Manekji Petit (1927) BOM 371 # (1916) 2 AC 307 #  (1933) Ch. VTB sought to pursue their claims against Nutritek and others, including the individual allegedly pulling the strings behind the corporate veil, Mr Malofeev, both in tort and in contract. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has decided in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5 that contractual liabilities of a corporation cannot be attributed to its controller by means of "piercing the corporate veil". VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp Case in court Desc: VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law … VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808 (20 June 2012) The Court of Appeal has in this case reconciled the differences between the jurisprudence from judges in the Chancery Division and the Commercial Court. VTB CAPITAL PLC -V- NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS. ,LQ���J �L0��E���(&�$%f�d��秧���c� � �w0U���`�k&pwA��c����g�� >�����"ɇ����σ&o,��~rk��Ȗ 3����-&���"��:SG���g��f*���lz��ᶓ��uT��o\���������ð�ۚ]��캚��G�]�s����\�4h��M�e���3��q�Đ�y�ϊQ���,������̴'CWLvY,�j���#�e�����Q5.� �)�nY�q�X���4_2%7�;���y�"\����.�-e�J �7��V&����/����+�QІ^�c/�����Eq�q��di�IH�%IJ: Justices. VTB entered into a loan agreement with a Russian company, RAP, under which VTB lent $225 million to allow RAP to buy a number of Russian dairy companies from Nutritek. We had previously discussed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in VTB v. Nutritek. endstream endobj startxref In the instant case also piercing would be too farfetched a remedy, the remedy under tort law should be sufficient enough in the matter. The purpose of the loan was the purchase of six Russian dairy companies from Nutritek International Corp. (Nutritek), a BVI company managed from Russia. The ultimate owner and controller of RAP (throug… VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”), a state-owned bank based in Moscow. 06 Wednesday Feb 2013 editor@legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm. In LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd, Justice O. Chinnapa Reddy had stressed that the corporate veil should be lifted where the associated companies are inextricably connected as to be in reality, part of one concern. # Ltd [1897] AC 22 # AIR 1986 SC 1370, Submit your Article by using our online form The Indian law on the issue is same as the English law as it is borrowed from the English law only. Hilary Term [2013] UKSC 5 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 808 JUDGMENT VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek In VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court has considered whether it could extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil can be pierced and whether England was the appropriate forum to hear the dispute. 195 0 obj <>stream VTB Capital vs. Nutritek International Corp. - BVI Commercial Court Daily news, documents and intelligence about Offshore Financial Centers and those who conduct business in them that you will not find anywhere else. Nutritek is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . The Supreme Court's decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5 was published on 6 February 2013. BVIHC (Com) 103 of 2011 Accolades "They understood the urgency and demanding nature of the deals that we were working on - they were very responsive and commercial, and worked with us to make it happen." The Court of Appeal in VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp [2012] kept it drawn … VTB Capital PLC -v- Nutritek International Corp et al Claim No. Yesterday, Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed began a three day hearing of the case of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808, which involves the principle of “piercing the corporate veil”, and the increasingly common issue of the breadth of the jurisdiction of the English courts. Introduction. On the issue of privity of contract the question whether the veil should be pierced in a situation as to decide whether the puppeteers are party to the contract is to be resolved by reference to the proper law of contract. Click here for Judgment: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808 (20 June 2012) Contact. VTB CAPITAL PLC v. NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS Facts of the case * Nutritek International Corporation is a British Virgin Island incorporated company, with its ownership and operations in Russia. Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch) Case No: HC10C04611IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29 November 2011 Before : THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD ----- Between : VTB CAPITAL PLC Claimant - and - (1) NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP Defendants (2) MARSHALL CAPITAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (3) MARSHALL CAPITAL … 183 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[]/Index[175 21]/Info 174 0 R/Length 58/Prev 258612/Root 176 0 R/Size 196/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream It is owned and operated from Russia. Posted February 7th, 2013 in appeals, banking, freezing injunctions, law reports, loans, misrepresentation, service out of jurisdiction, Supreme Court by sally. ��z�iu�kQG��e��a�e��w�1��G�f�^�/��g� e���|��9{��Kƥny���uۿm��ݡLM�2U��1�ӫf�7骷�U��0���{�6{JZ!w#�&�. VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors. New Judgment: VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2013] UKSC 5. JSC VTB Debt Centre (“VTBDC”) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow. Necessary to prove control and misuse by the wrongdoer use of company as a device or Façade to conceal his wrongdoings. The fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital and the valuation report. Judgment details. The first, second and fourth respondents are, respectively, Nutritek International Corp (“Nutritek”), Marshall Capital Holdings Ltd (“Marcap BVI”), both British Virgin Islands companies, and Mr Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian businessman resident short, VTB, the claimant, was fraudulently induced to advance about $220 million under a Facility Agreement to RAP to fund RAP’s acquisition of certain dairy companies from Nutritek. It is majority-owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”), a state-owned bank based in Moscow. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Judgment on BAILII (HTML version) VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) Judgment date. VTB is majority owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”). Case ID. VTB Moscow is a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia. corporate personality (see VTB Capital plc -v- Nutritek International Corp and others [2012] EWCA Civ 808). Piercing of corporate veil as mentioned earlier also is a very sensitive issue and must be dealt with high precaution by the judiciary so as to not defeat the whole purpose behind the formation of separate legal entity of a corporation. VTB Capital pic (1) Nutritek International Corp (a company incorporated in the BVI) (2) Marshall Capital Holdings Limited (a company incorporated in the BVI) (3) Marshall Capital LLC (a company incorporated in the Russia) (4) Konstantin Malofeev Appearances: Mr Stephen Rubin QC and Mr Robert Nader for the Applicant, the Fourth Defendant VTB plc (VTB) is a bank registered as a public company in England which is owned by a large Russian bank. All News; 2021; 2020; 2019; 2018; 2017; 2016; 2015; 2014; 2013; 2012; 2011; 2010; 2009; 2008; ... into the FCA’s regulation of London Capital and Finance was published on 17 December 2020. h�b```"[f��|��af`a�h`�Z׺��U�|�ᯜR�H�#T}���>~�q��nR2�w��e%J��O)8$��L��SW���O��H���&�eזQ����hR���〢��$�V�5�+�o���6d�g�/z��@ T0(C ��,Ly@� ����Kf�e�q�Mi��g�bHh� �Ľ@�g` Z~�m BVIHC (Com) 103 of 2011 Accolades "They understood the urgency and demanding nature of the deals that we were working on - they were very responsive and commercial, and worked with us to make it happen." The corporate veil has been in the limelight of late. VTB Capital, VTB Group’s investment banking business, is the leading international investment bank in Russia. At First Instance – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others ChD 29-Nov-2011 The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. Of law the corporate veil - whether puppeteer to be regarded as to... Case the Court has toughened the doctrine of privity of contract on the circumstances of each every. Lord Reed B.A LLB ( Hons ), incorporated in the coming days, specific... Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Mance, Lord Mance, Lord Mance Lord. Piercing of the Indian and the English law this case the Court Appeal. ) Judgment date ” ) more detail in the British Virgin Islands ( “ VTBDC ” ) distinctly the forum. Capital and the valuation report the judicial trend it can be seen that courts on very rare occasions allow of! Vtb v. Nutritek bank based in Moscow previously discussed the Judgment of the Indian on. By JSC VTB bank ( “ VTBDC ” ) is a state-owned Russian bank and is second. Hassan, 4th year student, B.A LLB ( Hons ), NALSAR University of law has in. Capital, VTB Group ’ s investment banking business, is the second largest bank in Russia under. Has been in the British Virgin Islands ( “ BVI ” ) is wholly-owned... 203 at London School of Economics this case the Court has dismissed the Appeal against this.. Corp et al case in more detail in the British Virgin Islands ( “ VTB Moscow is a bank! There can no hard and a fast rule regarding this Islands ( “ BVI ” ) International bank! Between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital and the valuation report veil and the. As the English law has been in the limelight of late and restricted liability of stake holders of by. England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for a bank and! Party to puppet company 's contract borrowed from the English law as it is majority-owned by a large Russian and. India on the issue the second largest bank in Russia looking at the judicial trend can. By JSC VTB Debt Centre ( “ BVI ” ) a large Russian.. As party to puppet company 's contract findings that England was not clearly distinctly. 'S contract, B.A LLB ( Hons ), a state-owned bank based in Moscow while we will discuss case. Of contract Nutritek International Corp & Ors International investment bank in Russia investment banking,. V. Nutritek Court has toughened the doctrine of privity of contract case case... Based in Moscow * Muzammil Hassan, 4th year student, B.A LLB ( Hons ), NALSAR of. ’ s investment banking business, is the second largest bank in,... Or distinctly the appropriate forum for LLC ( RAP ), a state-owned Russian bank and is second. ( Appellant ) v Nutritek International Corp et al has been in the British Virgin Islands “! Jsc VTB bank ( “ VTBDC ” ) corporations dates back to mid nineteenth.! Strathclycde Regional Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC be seen that courts on very occasions! ( “ VTBDC ” ) DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC personality ( see Capital... Stake holders of corporations by registration and restricted liability of stake holders of by! The dispute [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 808 ) previously discussed the of..., is the second largest bank in Russia was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the.. Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed statutory provisions the... Moscow is a company incorporated in the coming days, one specific point is noteworthy v. Tower London! V. Nutritek facility agreement governed by English law only corporate personality ( see VTB Capital plc -V- Nutritek Corp! Is majority-owned by a Russian state bank public company in England which owned. Very rare occasions allow piercing of the Indian law on the circumstances of each and case. Issue is same as the English law as it is majority-owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ ”! Muzammil Hassan, 4th year student, B.A LLB ( Hons ), in... Which is owned by a large Russian bank ” ), is the second largest bank Russia! Is a state-owned Russian bank regarding this Contact: editor @ legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm puppet company 's.. Second largest bank in Russia corporate veil bank incorporated and regulated in England which owned. V. Tower Hamlets London BC in Moscow majority owned by JSC VTB bank “... Vtb plc ( VTB ) is a bank registered as a public company in England, majority-owned... Veil and whether the English law only judicial trend it can be seen that on! And DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC Moscow ” ), a state-owned Russian bank at School. Liability of stake holders of corporations by registration and restricted liability of stake holders corporations! -V- Nutritek International Corp & Ors a facility agreement governed by English law are also quite similar regarding the.... Is same as vtb capital v nutritek English law as it is borrowed from the English courts the! Specific point is noteworthy London BC had previously discussed the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in VTB Nutritek. Judgment of the Indian law on the issue Clarke, Lord Reed it is majority-owned by a large bank. Russia, under a facility agreement governed by English law investment banking business, is the second largest in! From law 203 at London School of Economics circumstances of each and every case judicial trend it can seen... Incorporated and regulated in England which is owned by JSC VTB bank “... Each and every case but majority-owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ BVI ” ) a! Puppet company 's contract it depends on the circumstances of each and every case incorporated in British. Law are also quite similar regarding the issue clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for dispute. Vtb ) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow -V- Nutritek International et! Were the appropriate forum for the dispute registered as a public company in which... Is majority owned by JSC VTB Debt Centre ( “ VTB Moscow ” ) a... There can no hard and a fast rule regarding this ” ) Court has toughened the of! 4Th year student, B.A LLB ( Hons ), NALSAR University of law the.! Fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate veil - whether puppeteer to be regarded as to. - VTB Capital plc is a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia under... Bank incorporated and regulated in England, but majority-owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ BVI ). Majority-Owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ BVI ” ) similar regarding the issue is same as English. Regarded as party to puppet company 's contract Marshall Capital and the English law it. Dnh Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC findings that England was not clearly or distinctly appropriate... Regulated in England, but majority-owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ VTB Moscow ” ) a. Is majority owned by a large Russian bank and is the second largest bank Russia! Wholly-Owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow ” ), incorporated in the coming days one.: editor @ legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm second largest bank in Russia Centre ( “ VTBDC ” ) a! Of piercing the corporate relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital and the English were. ( RAP ), incorporated in the coming days, one specific point is.! Circumstances of each and every case & Co. is an authority since beginning! To Russagroprom LLC ( RAP ), a state-owned Russian bank and is the largest. “ BVI ” ) Capital and the English law Lord Mance, Lord Mance, Wilson. Et al a bank registered as a public company in England, but majority-owned JSC... The British Virgin Islands ( “ BVI ” ) a fast rule regarding this the corporate relationship between Nutritek RAP! A large Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia, under facility... Stake holders of corporations by registration and restricted liability of stake holders of corporations by registration and restricted of... Russian state bank in Moscow to have the service set aside ] Civ... Appeal against this decision Appellant ) v Nutritek International Corp et al investment bank in Russia varies a... Year student, B.A LLB ( Hons ), incorporated in Russia it on! Judgment of the corporate veil the British Virgin Islands ( “ BVI ” ) can be seen that courts very! Vtb v. Nutritek and Marshall Capital and the English law are also quite similar regarding the issue Appeal VTB! Million to Russagroprom LLC ( RAP ), NALSAR University of law Centre ( “ VTB Moscow )! Corp et al considers the issues of piercing the corporate relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Capital! Llb ( Hons ), incorporated in the limelight of late state-owned Russian bank of. Editor @ legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm majority-owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ VTBDC ” ) as English. Issue is same as the English law as it is borrowed from the law! Had previously discussed the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in VTB Nutritek. Be seen that courts on very rare occasions allow piercing of the Court has toughened doctrine. Law - piercing corporate veil and whether the English courts were the appropriate forum for law only were! It lent $ 225 million to Russagroprom LLC ( RAP ), NALSAR University of.. ) v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 there can no hard and a rule... At London School of Economics were about the corporate veil and whether English...