sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) 

Russia / 24 January 2012 / Twelfth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal / AKB ROSBANK, OOO SpecStalResurs, receiver of OOO SpecStalResurs, HSH Nordbank AG, Erste Group Bank AG, VTB Capital plc, VTB Bank AG v OAO Metallurgichesky Zavod “Krasny Oktyabr” / A12-3245/2010

Country	Russia
Court	Russia, Twelfth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
Date	24 January 2012
Parties	AKB ROSBANK, OOO SpecStalResurs, receiver of OOO SpecStalResurs, HSH Nordbank AG, Erste Group Bank AG, VTB Capital plc, VTB Bank AG v OAO Metallurgichesky Zavod “Krasny Oktyabr”
Case number	A12-3245/2010
Applicable NYC Provisions	II | II(3)
Source	http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts)
Languages	English
Summary	On 26 October 2007, ZAO Volgogradsky Metallurgichesky Zavod entered into a syndicated loan agreement with VTB Bank Europe Plc (“VTB”) acting as lead lender. The loan was guaranteed pursuant to a surety agreement concluded between VTB and OAO Metallurgichesky Zavod “Krasny Oktyabr” (“MZKO”). Certain rights under the loan and surety agreements were subsequently assigned to other banks including HSH Nordbank AG, VTB Bank AG, Erste Group Bank AG, KAB Societe General East, and AKB ROSBANK (the “Banks”). On 9 February 2010, MZKO filed for bankruptcy with the Arbitrazh Court of the Volgograd Region (court of first instance). In the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, the court registered the Banks’ claims as creditors arising out of the surety agreement. On 5 December 2011, the receiver acting on behalf of MZKO obtained the annulment of the surety agreement from the court of first instance. The Banks appealed the decision to the Twelfth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal (court of appeal) alleging inter alia that the court of first instance violated Article II(3) NYC by failing to refer the dispute over the validity of the surety agreement to the London Court of International Arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the surety agreement. The Twelfth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the annulment of the surety agreement. Without referring to NYC, it held that the Arbitrazh Court of the Volgograd Region – the court at the debtor’s location – had exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to MZKO’s bankruptcy and that such issues could not be submitted to arbitration. The court further noted that the Banks had not invoked the arbitration clause in their first submissions on the merits before the Volgograd court and concluded that the court had correctly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
Link to the record	https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1593&opac_view=6

Attachment (1)

Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF