Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Ak Investment V. Kyrgyz Mobile Tel Notes

BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Ak Investment V. Kyrgyz Mobile Tel document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:


AK INVESTMENT V. KYRGYZ MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION LTD

FACTS Summary of relevant facts: (1) The Transfer Agreement was between the KFG Companies and IPOC, and IPOC
had a right to transfer its interest to KMIC. (2) The Transfer Agreement was governed by English law and included an
arbitration agreement, providing for LCIA arbitration. (3) Fellowes was not a party to the Transfer Agreement. (4) From March 2004 there were arbitral proceedings between KMIC and the KFG
Companies under the Transfer Agreement. (5) In the proceedings which led to the April 2005 Judgment Fellowes falsely claimed
to be a party to the Transfer Agreement. (6) The April 2005 Judgment decided that Fellowes had signed the Transfer
Agreement, and ignored the arbitration agreement. (7) The English and BVI courts granted injunctions restraining Fellowes from
bringing any proceedings to enforce rights under the Transfer Agreement except by
way of LCIA arbitration in London, or enforcing the April 2005 Judgment. (8) The English court (and the BVI court) made a declaration that no contract
existed between the KFG Companies and Fellowes since Fellowes was not a party
to the Transfer Agreement, and that the proceedings brought by Fellowes in
Kyrgyzstan were vexatious and oppressive. (9) The Receiver informed the Kyrgyz court that he had revoked all authority granted
by Fellowes to its lawyers to represent it in the Kyrgyz proceedings. (10) Fellowes sought and obtained an order from the BVI court discharging the
appointment of the Receiver, but the order was stayed pending appeal. (11) In October 2005 the BVI court granted an injunction restraining Fellowes from
transferring the BITEL shares. (12) Reservespetsmet obtained an order for registration of the BITEL shares in its
name on the basis that it had purchased the BITEL shares from Fellowes in May 2005.
Fellowes claimed that the sale of its interest in BITEL had been effected by an agent
on its behalf but with its knowledge. (13) There is strong evidence that Reservespetsmet's press releases about its
acquisition of the shares came from the Altimo computer gateway. (14) In breach of the injunction and the receivership order Fellowes sought re­
instatement of the April 2005 Judgment. Its lawyers falsely told the Supreme Court of
Kyrgyzstan that the Receiver had been discharged.

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.

More Conflict Of Laws Bcl Samples