Addleshaw Goddard is on the hunt for a top-notch silk to lead the second tranche of the Boris Berezovsky proceedings after One Essex Court’s Laurence Rabinowitz QC withdrew from the case.
Rabinowitz has been acting for the exiled Russian oligarch during his commercial court battle with Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, but sources close to the case say he has now withdrawn due to prior diary commitments.
Addleshaws partner Mark Hastings, who is leading the Chancery proceedings for Berezovsky, is believed to be lining up heavyweight counsel with Brick Court Chambers in the frame to secure the mandate.
The case pitches Berezovsky against three defendants, Russian metal magnate Vasily Anisimov, the estate of Arkady “Badri” Patarkatsishvili, formerly Georgia’s richest man, and investment company Salford Capital Partners.
It is understood the parties are plotting to build top-flight legal teams which they are desperate to keep under wraps in the build up to the tense October trial. “The Russians want a proper punch up, they want to go to court,” a source close to the case said. “There is no way these cases will settle.”
Hogan Lovells partner Graham Huntley, who is representing the Patarkatsishvili parties, is believed to have secured a silk to lead Serle Court’s Jonathan Adkin.
Meanwhile, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ian Terry, who is acting for Anisimov, is hoping that 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC and Sonya Tolaney QC will continue to act as counsel. However Tolaney is engaged on another trial, although that case hearing is expected to be delayed.
Barristers are looking to break into the lucrative world of Russian litigation because parties are so firmly opposed and are cash rich. Brief fees for Russian cases are on the rise on the back of speculation about how much Jonathan Sumption QC, also of Brick Court, secured for his work for Abramovich.
Sumption, who earlier this month was sworn into the Supreme Court, is widely thought to have secured a fee upwards of £3m (6 April 2011).
One lawyer said: “The huge fees are partly because of the Sumption effect, but also because barristers know the Russians will pay and these cases are huge.”
The October battle is focused on allegations by Berezovsky that significant proportions of assets and funds worth between $2bn and $3bn (£1.3bn and £1.9bn) held by the Patarkatsishvili estate, or a large number of offshore trusts and funds set up by Patarkatsishvili, as well as assets held by Anisimov, are in fact beneficially part-owned by Berezovsky.
Berezovsky alleges that Patarkatsishvili was his joint venture partner and therefore either holds Berezovsky’s assets or is liable for Patarkatsishvili’s alleged negligence or breach of trust in dissipating assets to others, including Anisimov.
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 24-Jan-2012 11:48 am
Angry Russian moguls trying to "shoot down" each other. Oh, the bread and butter of the English Oxbridge-educated commercial lawyer. Lovely times...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rural bliss | 24-Jan-2012 1:08 pm
It's a shame these `top flight' QC's haven't got a conscience.
They should all be charged with living off immoral earnings.
It's the unfortunate Russian people for whom these greedy parasttes should be acting, the people who had their assets stolen by a gang of thugs in suits.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Jan-2012 2:55 pm
Entirely agree. The UK courts are cashing in on foreign disputes caused by unscrupulous people in lands where politics and economics clash in the most irregular way.
These barristers are suppose to have a moral compass as is the court. They should send these cases away
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Jan-2012 4:49 pm
It is hard to see how barristers can be criticized as if they are actively hunting down this immoral Russian litigation to make money out of.
The fact is commercial disputes originating in Russia and very many other overseas jurisdictions end up in the English courts and when you have a case in an English court you need an English barrister.
There is obviously a reason why parties choose to litigate in England and it usually involves the quality and impartiality of our judicial system, which in turn relies on top quality advocacy from English barristers.
It generates huge export revenue for the UK and pretty substantial tax revenue from the various legal representatives. And yes, of course they do very nicely out of it themselves too.
The sources of Russian income are of course subject to much speculation. Fair enough. I’m sure all those questioning the morals of barristers acting for the Russians have carefully analysed the sources of their own income and will no doubt turn the TV off whenever Chelsea are playing, as dictated by their own flawless moral compasses.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bryan Murphy | 25-Jan-2012 9:05 pm
And of course all the consumers with a conscience also won't buy oil in any form, or any Chinese consumer goods (computers inclusive), as they derive from shoddy states with no rule of law or human rights ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Jan-2012 8:49 am
Given there are people who have fled these countries because of this corruption who end up needing state support from the British govenment/taxpayer. What does the government intend to do about taxing this new found lucre to fund this support.
The elections in Russia et al are flawed that is how the Russian oligarchy found their wealth, it was handed to them by their political friends. We obviously now have a means to access that money to pay for the people that have arrived at our shore as a result of that corruption.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Jan-2012 10:44 am
I suspect the millions that the government makes in income tax on the barristers' brief fees in these cases more than makes up for the costs incurred in providing asylum those seeking it from that region....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Jan-2012 11:25 am
What are you talking about anon@10.44?? My understanding is that many of these barristers who are meant to be payng 50% tax are in fact using offshore structures to minimise their exposure.
That said, everybody deserves justice and these barristers can't turn down cases - there is such a thing as a cab rank rule.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Jan-2012 2:47 pm
Withdrawn due to prior diary commitments?
Hmmm that's interesting, I think his clerk should be taught a lesson in not double booking the diary.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31-Jan-2012 10:37 am
Given the fees involved, I would be surprised if the clerk involved hadn't moved heaven and earth to try to sort out the diary clash. However, if Mr Rabinowitz QC is already committed to another case it is good to see that his other committments are not being shelved just to chase the Russian fees.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment