Freezing orders, delay and proprietary injunctions: key lessons from Alliance Petrochemical v Mazzagatti Background The WWFO application The applicable principles The impact of delay API's three new grounds: all rejected The proprietary injunction A BVI perspective Freezing orders in the BVI Practical takeaways for offshore litigators

The judgment arose from allegations that at least 143 million euros had been misappropriated from API, a Singapore incorporated petrochemical company, and its subsidiary, Alliance Petrochemicals Trading LLC, APT.

Background API alleged that its former CEO, Mr. Mazzagatti, and his associate, Mr. Dixit, misappropriated at least €143,808,798.66 from API and APT.

It said the money was diverted through customer payments, profits routed through NEPAG IT Ltd., and direct withdrawals from API and APT's bank accounts.

API alleged that a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds financed the acquisition of Rockrose Energy PLC by Viero Energy Ltd, a company indirectly 96.4% owned by Mr Matagatti.

API also alleged that Viaro Energy relied on forged loan facility documents, purportedly from two Abu Dhabi individuals for £250 million each, the Abu Dhabi loan facilities, to present the acquisition as having legitimate financing.