BREAKING! Uganda's Tycoon Dr Sudhir wins another round in London Crane Bank
LONDON – In a significant ruling, a London court has ruled that city tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia and his Crane Bank Ltd associates do not have to deposit security in their bid to claim significant compensation from the dfcu Bank, and her key directors — all before the UK courts. In his 30th October ruling, Mr. Justice Stephen Hofmeyr KC, said it was dismissed in its entirety the reasons submitted by the dfcu Bank and her UK directors, who are targets of the suit, accused of conniving with the Ugandan central bank top officials to sale the defunct Crane Bank Limited at gross undervalue. Mr. Justice Hofmeyr KC ruled:“In the light of the conclusions to which I have come, I do not need to deal with the reliance placed by the claimants on the Bank of Uganda indemnities. The Bank of Uganda indemnities are relied upon by the claimants as an entirely independent reason why security should not be ordered. It is common groundthat these types of factors will only be relevant to a question of security for costs in an unusual case”.He added: “If it had been necessary for me to form a view on the matter, I would have concluded that they are, at best, of limited tangential relevance in the instant case, would have placed no significant weight upon them and would have dismissed them as sufficient reason why security should not be ordered,” he said.“For the reasons I have given, the applications for security are dismissed,” the judge ruled.Background:A long-running lawsuit involving claims exceeding US $200 million, relating to the Crane Bank Ltd, a Ugandan bank, is being heard by the English courts following a victory for Crane Bank and its shareholders in the Court of Appeal, of Uganda.The UKs High Court earlier dismissed an attempt by dfcu Bank England based directors to turn on the ‘foreign act of state doctrine, which prevents the English courts from hearing matters concerning foreign government acts of state taking place in the territory of the foreign state.The ruling from the Court of Appeal in the UK found that Crane Bank and its shareholders’ claims are not barred by the foreign act of state doctrine.Mr Justice Hofmeyr’s conclusions have been published in the UK on Thursday November 31, 2024Crane Bank was one of Uganda’s largest commercial banks until 2016. The claim asserts that officials at the Bank of Uganda engaged in a corrupt scheme with the defendants to take control of Crane Bank and sell its assets for the benefit of the conspirators. Along with its shareholders, Crane Bank claims unlawful means conspiracy against the Development Finance Company of Uganda (DFCU), its executives, and four development finance institutions who it is claimed took part in a fraudulent scheme to purchase Crane Bank’s assets at a gross undervalue.The Court of Appeal in the UK, confirmed that their claim for hundreds of millions of US Dollars against DFCU Bank, its executive directors, non-executive directors and shareholders can proceed to be heard by the English courts.“Crane Bank claims that senior former officials at the Bank of Uganda engaged in a corrupt scheme to take control of Crane Bank and sell its assets at a gross undervalue, while also syphoning off public funds. Along with its shareholders, Crane Bank claims that DFCU Bank and the other Defendants took part in the fraudulent scheme and purchased Crane Bank’s assets at a gross undervalue, while also effectively paying a bribe,” the shareholders said in statement dated July 28. “The Court of Appeal found that there are serious issues to be tried and the claim falls outside the foreign act of state doctrine, relying on the commercial activity exception and the argument that all the executive acts in question engage the English public policy of combatting and not giving legal protection to bribery and corruption.”Crane Bank shareholders warned that dfcu Bank cannot rely on the foreign act of state doctrine to evade liability.“Crane Bank and its shareholders will continue to vigorously pursue their claim as part of a fair legal process before the English courts,” the shareholders added. The UK Court of Appeal found that there are serious issues to be tried in relation to the claimants’ reliance on (i) the Commercial Activity Exception, and (ii) the argument that all the executive acts in question engage the English public policy of combatting and not giving legal protection to bribery and corruption, thereby falling outside the foreign act of state doctrine (the Public Policy Exception).The Greenberg Traurig team, led by Masoud Zabeti, a shareholder and Litigation chair for Europe at Greenberg Traurig, also comprised Of Counsel Katharine Bond, Senior Associate Miten Vaghela, Senior Associate Bethany Histed, Associate Thai Nguyen, and Trainee Solicitor Francesca Conroy. The team instructed Lord David Pannick KC of Blackstone Chambers and Hannah Brown KC.
Religious
