Venezuelan businessman Wilmer Ruperti is facing a trial over his claim that a 2016 settlement agreement with Russian tanker owner Novoship was breached by the alleged unlawful trading of a sex-tape involving a US oil tycoon.
UK high court justice Nigel Teare turned down a bid by claimant Ruperti's Maroil Trading for summary judgment or the striking out of certain allegations made by the defendants, Cally Shipholdings, "a collection of shipping companies", in what was described as a "complicated" case with roots in legal action dating back to 2006.
Cally had in turn applied to amend their defence, which was granted.
Ruperti is seeking damages of between $53m and $91m for what he says is the breach of the 2016 deal with companies controlled by Sovcomflot's Novoship unit.
The case arises from a 2006 allegation by Cally against Ruperti and others about the taking of secret profits.
In 2012 Cally obtained judgment against Ruperti for about $78m.
In September 2013 a settlement was concluded under which Ruperti was required to pay $40m by instalments.
There were enforcement proceedings in England, Florida and Switzerland.
PDVSA payments
The last of those involved a criminal prosecution in the course of which the Swiss public prosecutor obtained disclosure of certain documents which he provided to the defendant, Cally.
These included a payment agreement dated December 2014 between Ruperti and Venezuelan oil company PDVSA, pursuant to which substantial sums were to be paid by PDVSA to the claimant.
In 2015, Ruperti paid $25.5m to the defendant under the September 2013 settlement agreement.
A dispute then arose as to whether Ruperti had discharged his debt to the defendant.
This was decided in Ruperti's favour by a UK court in 2015.
Permission to appeal was granted but this action was compromised by the 2016 settlement agreement.
Investigator sued
The Financial Times had reported earlier this year that Novoship is suing Daniel Hall, a senior executive at Burford Capital, in a separate $91m case.
It has accused him of unlawfully trading confidential documents for "video material of a sexual nature" relating to billionaire Harry Sargeant III, whose assets he was investigating for another client.
Hall, co-head of Burford’s global corporate intelligence, asset tracing and enforcement business, is alleged to have supplied “sensitive” documents obtained while working for Novoship to investigate Ruperti's assets.
Novoship has denied liability and in turn blamed Hall and Burford for the alleged breach.
The Russian company had contracted Hall and given him access to a computer file containing “confidential” documents relating to Ruperti.
Novoship has argued that it should be compensated by Burford in full if it loses the Ruperti case.
Burford’s defence filing said it was not liable to Novoship for any loss or damages and said “the relevant information was in the public domain and was otherwise not private and confidential”.
Acting for another client
Teare's judgment says: "In October 2016 a Mr Hall provided to a Mr Sargeant copies of documents obtained in the Swiss enforcement proceedings, including the payment agreement.
"However, when he provided copies to Mr Sargeant he was acting for another client, Mr Mohammed Al-Saleh, and was no longer acting for the defendants.
"This is not common ground but for the purposes of the present applications it must be assumed to be the case."
The judgment adds: "There is evidence that in return for the copies, Mr Sargeant provided Mr Hall with a video of Mr Sargeant's brother engaged in sexual acts. Mr Sargeant's brother was in dispute with Mr Al-Saleh."
The documents provided to Sargeant led to further proceedings against Ruperti by Sargeant's company, Latin American Investments Limited, and another company.
In those proceedings it was alleged that by receiving payments from PDVSA, Ruperti's Maroil, which was in a joint venture with Latin American, had made secret profits.
A worldwide freezing order for sums collectively totalling about $83m, was obtained and in November 2017 the claims were settled by the claimant, who agreed to pay a substantial sum in three tranches.
It is said that only the first tranche was paid, and that a further settlement was concluded thereafter, under which additional payments have been made.
Three questions
Teare examined three questions for the application:
- whether the disclosure of the payment agreement was not a breach of the 2016 settlement agreement because it had ceased to be a private document in April 2015 when it was referred to in evidence and in a judgment.
- whether there can be a breach when Hall was not acting as the defendants' agent or investigator
- and whether, if the claimants were in truth liable to Latin American, there was a public interest in the Swiss proceedings documents being disclosed such that there has been no breach of the 2016 settlement agreement
Teare ruled that the matters should be decided at trial, partly because there are plausible arguments on both sides and also because new evidence may emerge.
The 2016 settlement involved Ruperti's Sea Pioneer Shipping and sister company PMI Trading.
The UK court battle had raged even after Novoship won the 2012 fraud judgement against Ruperti and even after he agreed to switch sides and aid Sovcomflot in a related fraud case that reduced the amount to $40m.
