英语论文网

2. USING THE ANTI-SUIT: A CASE STUDY
The anti-suit injunction is not an interference with the actions of another court, or another
State. It is a personal remedy, against a breaching party, preventing them from continuing to breach a bargain that just so happens to involve a promise regarding where to arbitrate or sue. The case below illustrates how it retains its predominant role in enforcing forum clauses and arbitration agreements in States outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation.
The case in point is the recent LV Finance/IPOC cases, or the “MegaFon Dispute”, a
multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning a controlling stake in the Russian mobile telephone company, MegaFon. The case involved related arbitrations in Zurich, Geneva and Stockholm, as well as ancillary litigation in the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and, as explained below, Russia. The anti-suit injunction was ordered in Bermuda (Country A) (therefore outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation), to stop proceedings in Russia (Country B) brought in breach of an arbitration agreement https://www.51lunwen.org/liuxuelunwendx/with a seat in Switzerland (Country C). The governing law of the arbitration agreements (as well as the underlying agreements) was England and Wales (Country D).
The facts
The underlying dispute concerned two option agreements under which IPOC (a Bermuda incorporated mutual fund) purportedly had the right to purchase from LVFG (a British Virgin Islands incorporated company) 100 per cent of the shares of a Bahamian company Trans Continental Mobile Investment Ltd (TMI). IPOC alleged that an option was taken over the TMI shares because it had indirect control over what became the 25.1 per cent stake in MegaFon (the Disputed Stake).