1. CAT Trading Ges.m.b.H, 2. Coraline Limited, 3. Joma Industrial Source Corp v. 1. CAT GMBH Consulting Agency Trade & Company (Cyprus), 2. AB PCO Investment Limited, 3. Anna Brinkmann, 4. Dr Walter Hoeft, 5. Elpida Papastylianou, 6. Fairtune Limited, District Court of Nicosia Civil Case No. 6193/2014 - Interim Judgment - Greek - 27 April 2016
Country
Year
2016
Summary
Hoeft v. Coraline Ltd, SCC Case No. V 2015/012 - Final Award of June 13, 2017
July 2020 - The final award in Dr. Walter Hoeft v. Coraline Ltd, SCC Case No. V 2015/012 was recognized, registered and enforced in Austria and a freezing order was issued (Unknown v. Unknown, First Instance Court of Innere Stadt Vienna Civil Case Nos GZ 63 E 2760/17f-2 judgment of July 26, 2017 and GZ 63 E 2760/17f-5 judgment of August 2, 2017, not publicly available; Unknown v. Unknown, Civil District Court of Vienna Civil Case No. GZ 47 R 37/18s-30 judgment of June 13, 2018, not publicly available). However, the Supreme Court overturned the judgments on the ground of a procedural error of importance. The Court accepted the argument that the question of lack of arbitration agreement needed to be answered according to the applicable law, that being the law of Cyprus. This was not done by the First Instance Court. Thus, a re-trial was ordered (Unknown v. Unknown, Supreme Court of Austria Civil Case No. 3Ob153/18y judgment of December 19, 2018).
Applicant in Hoeft v. Coraline Ltd, District Court of Limassol Civil Case No. 11/2017, filed an application for the recognition, registration and enforcement of said arbitral award. On the same day, applicant also requested a freezing order of the assets of the respondent along with a discovery order. In support of said requests, applicant argued that he did not have a clear picture of the respondent’s assets due to failure to file annual accounts since 2014. These orders were granted freezing assets up to EUR 10,851,325. The request to prohibit officers and representatives of respondent from signing any document, performing any work and changing the management structure was dismissed, as it had not been substantiated (interim judgment of December 8, 2017). The request for recognition, registration and enforcement was rejected (interim judgment of December 15, 2017). It is unclear whether a final judgment has been issued.
Prior to the aforementioned arbitration case, which was initiated on February 3, 2015, a civil law suit was filed before the District Court of Nicosia on October 27, 2014 (Caroline Limited v. Hoft, AB PCO Investment Ltd and Anna Brinkmann, Civil Case No. 6193/2014). In these proceedings, it was argued that the loan agreement which was the object of the SCC arbitration, was the result of fraud, deceit and conspiracy. Publicly available is an interim judgment of September 30, 2015 on the application for a prohibition order and a document production order regarding the shares of AB PCO Investment Limited sold to Aziz Invest. Ltd. They were denied. Also publicly available is an interim judgment of April 27, 2016 regarding overseas service of pleadings. It is unclear whether a final judgment has been issued.
One year later the following proceedings were initiated: AB PCO Investment Ltd v. 1. CAT GMBH Consulting Agency Trade & Company (Cyprus) (CY), 2. Fairtune Limited (CY), 3. CAT Trading Ges.m.b.H (AT), 4. Joma Industrial Source Corp (BVI), 5. CAT Holding (Cyprus) Limited (CY), 6. Coraline Limited (CY), 7. Skible Holdings Limited (CY), 8. Maurice Gregoire Dijols (UK), Limassol District Court Civil Case No. 579/2015. A leave to file a complementary affidavit was granted (interim judgment of September 9, 2015). The object of these proceedings was damages for conspiracy to sign the Non Tender Agreement between Joma Industrial Source Corp (BVI) and C.A.T. Holding (Cyprus) Ltd prohibiting the latter from accepting a public offer for selling its shares in the Austrian company C.A.T. oil AG. The ex parte freezing orders of respondents’ assets were granted (interim judgment of March 3, 2017). Respondents later requested to strike out the law suit due to lack of locus standi, as claimant had merely an indirect interest in C.A.T. Holding (Cyprus) Ltd through intermediary companies. As claimant in this case based its claims on the tort of fraud the Court rejected the application (judgment of September 22, 2015). It is unclear whether a final judgment has been issued.
Note: Höft = Hoeft, Hoft
Four sets of judgments (three Cypriot - one Austrian) are associated with this arbitration case.
Austria
- Unknown v. Unknown, Supreme Court of Austria Civil Case No. 3Ob153/18y, judgment of December 19, 2018
- Unknown v. Unknown, First Instance Court of Innere Stadt Vienna Civil Case No. GZ 63 E 2760/17f-2 judgment of July 26, 2017 (not available)
- Unknown v. Unknown, First Instance Court of Innere Stadt Vienna Civil Case No. GZ 63 E 2760/17f-5 judgment of August 2, 2017 (not available)
- Unknown v. Unknown, Civil District Court of Vienna Civil Case No. GZ 47 R 37/18s-30 judgment of June 13, 2018 (not available)
Cyprus
1. CAT Trading Ges.m.b.H, 2. Coraline Limited, 3. Joma Industrial Source Corp v. 1. CAT GMBH Consulting Agency Trade & Company (Cyprus), 2. AB PCO Investment Limited, 3. Anna Brinkmann, 4. Dr Walter Hoeft, 5. Elpida Papastylianou, 6. Fairtune Limited, District Court of Nicosia Civil Case No. 6193/2014 (two judgments)
AB PCO Investment Ltd v. 1. CAT GMBH Consulting Agency Trade & Company (Cyprus) (CY), 2. Fairtune Limited (CY), 3. CAT Trading Ges.m.b.H (AT), 4. Joma Industrial Source Corp (BVI), 5. CAT Holding (Cyprus) Limited (CY), 6. Coraline Limited (CY), 7. Skible Holdings Limited (CY), 8. Maurice Gregoire Dijols (UK), Limassol District Court Civil Case No. 579/2015 (three judgments)
Dr. Walter Hoeft v. Coraline Ltd, Limassol District Court Civil Case No. 11/2017 (two judgments)
