Alan Gourgey QC
Call: 1984 QC: 2003
+44 (0)20 7306 firstname.lastname@example.org
Civil fraud is one of Alan’s main areas of practice and on in which he has been recommended by the legal directories for many years. “Super bright and very quick” as well as “very commercial”, Alan’s experience covers deceit and bribery, misappropriation and claims for breach of duty across a wide variety of subject areas from joint venture disputes to private equity litigation. He is also known for his skill in international asset tracing, where his excellent advocacy skills make him ideal for dealing with freezing injunctions and search orders.
His recent work includes:
- Interactive Technology Corporation v Ferster: claim for breaches of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of assets and other wrong doing in respect of operation of an online gaming business. Together with an unfair prejudice position.
- National Bank Trust v Belyayev & Ors: acting for defendants in claims bought by Russian bank against its former owners for breaches of duty with claims in the region of $800m.
- An ICC arbitration involving fraud claims against a major bank arising out of the Madoff fraud.
- Providence Finance v Svirsky: claims for misappropriation of assets and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to an international group of companies operating out of Russia and other offshore locations such as the BVI and Cayman Islands.
- AS Latvijas Krajbanka v Vladimir Antonov: Alan’s client, the defendant, is a Latvian former director of a Latvian bank, facing a multi-million Euro claim for fraud, misfeasance and breach of duty. Along with variation of the terms of a freezing injunction, another issue was an order for disclosure which raised issues of confidentiality.
- JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman  EWHC 183 (Comm): committal hearing brought by a Russian bank in connection with a failure to comply with a worldwide freezing order, in the sum of US$150 million.
- JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman (2nd action): proceedings (ongoing) concerning unlawful means conspiracy. Issues arising included identification of applicable law (Russian v English law) under Rome II.
- VTB v Nutritek: acting for VTB in claims for unlawful means conspiracy and deceit raised issues of applicable law under PILA.