Judgments

The Claimant applied to the AIFC Court for approval of a merger in which the First Defendant would be absorbed into the Claimant. The Court found that the merger was properly approved by shareholders, creditors were notified, and both entities were solvent. Consequently, the Court sanctioned the merger.

The Claimant (Freschette) brought proceedings before the AIFC Court to recover an outstanding debt from the primary debtor (Enegix) and enforce pledges over multiple properties provided by other defendants. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction, rejected challenges, and granted foreclosure over the pledged assets while also issuing anti-suit injunctions against parallel proceedings in Kazakhstan courts. The Court allowed enforcement against both the debtor and pledged property, but postponed the sale of assets to allow recovery from the primary debtor first.

The Claimant applied for court approval of a merger (amalgamation) of three AIFC companies into one entity, Araba. The Court found that the merger was properly approved by shareholders, creditors were notified, and no objections were raised, with all companies remaining solvent. The Court sanctioned the merger, ordered the transfer of assets and liabilities, and approved the dissolution of the merging companies.

The Respondent challenged the Sole Arbitrator’s impartiality and requested his removal, arguing bias in appointment and procedural decisions, including refusal to disqualify the Claimant’s law firm. The Court found no justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s independence, holding that procedural decisions fell within his discretion and that no real conflict of interest was proven. The application to remove the arbitrator was dismissed.

The Claimant sought remedies for termination of employment before the AIFC Court. The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction because the Defendant was not an AIFC participant and the parties had not agreed to submit disputes to the AIFC Court. Therefore, the claim was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Claimant sought recognition and enforcement of a Dubai court-approved settlement agreement before the AIFC Court. The Court first considered jurisdiction and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the Constitutional Statute, as it does not extend to enforcement of foreign court judgments. Therefore, the claim was dismissed.