Singapore-based Alliance Petrochemical Investment (API) is suing Francesco Mazzagatti and Francesco Dixit Dominus in the Commercial Court in London. It alleges, and they deny, that they misappropriated at least €143.8M from API and its Sharjah subsidiary. On November 3, 2026, the Court of Appeal kept API’s allegations about forged Abu Dhabi loan papers and upheld the refusal of a freezing order.
Latest development Nov 3, 2026
On November 3, 2026, the Court of Appeal let Alliance Petrochemical keep its allegations that forged Abu Dhabi loan papers supported the 2020 RockRose takeover. It struck out allegations drawn from Italian proceedings against Francesco Mazzagatti. It upheld an order for disclosure by H&P Advisory and the refusal of a freezing order.
Why it matters
The court must decide whether money allegedly taken through UAE bank accounts helped fund a North Sea oil and gas takeover. It will also examine whether loan papers in two Abu Dhabi sheikhs’ names, which Alliance Petrochemical says were forged, were used to support that deal.
Background
Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd (API) is a shareholder in Mehr Petrochemical Company (MHPC), which owns a petrochemical plant in Iran. API had the right to take and resell MHPC’s product through an assigned distributor. On July 31, 2018, Petrochemical Industries Ltd (PIL), a Hong Kong company then wholly owned by Francesco Mazzagatti, bought all of API’s shares. The first distributor was Napag IT Limited, a Ras Al Khaimah company he then owned. Alliance Petrochemicals Trading LLC (APT), a wholly owned API subsidiary incorporated in Sharjah in December 2018, later replaced it and was dissolved in April 2022.
API sued Mazzagatti in Singapore in July 2023. On August 7, 2024, it sued him and Francesco Dixit Dominus in the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales in London. It alleges that Mazzagatti, a director until September 2020, and Dixit Dominus controlled API’s and APT’s bank accounts and misappropriated at least €143.8M. It says much of the money reached Mazzagatti and helped fund Viaro Energy’s 2020 takeover of RockRose Energy, a North Sea oil and gas company. The defendants deny the claims in their entirety and say that Arshiya Jahanpour controlled API, APT, and their bank accounts from September 2018. They say RockRose was bought with funds that did not come from API or APT.
API also alleges that the defendants used forged papers for two £250M loan facilities to show that Viaro could fund the takeover. The facilities were in the names of two Abu Dhabi sheikhs, whom the judgments call Sheikh Zayed and Sheikh Thiab, and were never drawn down. According to API, Sheikh Zayed publicly denied in January 2025 that he had dealt with Mazzagatti or entered into the loan. API also says that Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB) confirmed by letter on September 10, 2025, that two bank documents showing his funds were forgeries. Mazzagatti, who sent those documents to Viaro’s financial adviser H&P Advisory in July 2020, says he received them from a representative of the sheikh’s office.
On August 4, 2025, Judge Pelling KC struck out the defendants’ defense that U.S. sanctions on Iran made the claim illegal. The High Court recorded that on March 4, 2026, the Dubai Courts dismissed a UAE claim by Mazzagatti to stop API using APT’s bank records. On August 14, 2026, Lionel Persey KC refused the defendants’ strike-out application, ordered disclosure by H&P Advisory, and refused API a freezing order. On November 3, 2026, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld those rulings but struck out allegations drawn from Italian tax and criminal proceedings against Mazzagatti. It directed API to serve amended statements of case, and the case has not yet reached disclosure.
Timeline 15 events
-
AppealCourt of Appeal mostly upholds August 2026 ruling
The court preserved API’s forged Abu Dhabi loan allegations and struck out claims drawn from Italian proceedings. It affirmed the H&P Advisory disclosure order and the refusal of a freezing injunction.
Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Mazzagatti & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 1403
-
AppealCourt of Appeal keeps Abu Dhabi loan forgery allegations in the case
The court struck out allegations drawn from Italian proceedings against Mazzagatti and upheld the H&P disclosure order and the refusal of a freezing order. It directed Alliance Petrochemical to serve amended statements of case.
-
OrderHigh Court refuses freezing order, orders H&P Advisory disclosure
Lionel Persey KC, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed API’s application for a worldwide freezing order and proprietary injunction of up to roughly €160M. He ordered non-party disclosure from H&P Advisory.
-
JudgmentHigh Court orders H&P disclosure and refuses a freezing order
Lionel Persey KC refused the defendants’ strike-out application and ordered H&P Advisory to disclose eight categories of documents. He held that delay was fatal to the application for a freezing order of up to €160M.
-
JudgmentDubai Courts dismiss Mazzagatti’s claim over APT’s bank records
Mazzagatti, claiming to control APT, had sought damages and an injunction to stop Alliance Petrochemical using APT’s bank records, which he said it obtained wrongfully. The High Court recorded the dismissal.
-
JudgmentHigh Court sets aside most of the defendants’ contribution claim
Mr Justice Andrew Baker set aside the defendants’ Part 20 claim against three Alliance Petrochemical directors and allowed it against Arshiya Jahanpour only on a narrow basis.
-
OtherADCB letter calls Sheikh Zayed bank documents forgeries, Alliance Petrochemical says
Alliance Petrochemical says Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank confirmed that a statement of accounts and a balance confirmation letter, sent to H&P Advisory in July 2020, were forgeries.
-
JudgmentJudge Pelling KC strikes out the defendants’ U.S. sanctions defense
The judge held that the pleaded illegality defense lacked the required territorial link with the United States. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal.
Find Case Law: [2025] EWHC 2155 (Comm)Find Case Law: [2026] EWHC 2178 (Comm)
-
OrderHigh Court strikes out sanctions-based illegality defense
Judge Pelling KC struck out a foreign illegality defense based on alleged U.S. sanctions breaches for lacking the territorial connection English law requires.
High Court strikes out illegality defence premised on alleged breaches of US sanctions
-
OtherSheikh Zayed publicly denies dealings with Mazzagatti, Alliance Petrochemical says
According to Alliance Petrochemical’s case as summarized by the High Court, the statement denied any dealings with Mazzagatti or any loan. Mazzagatti says he dealt with an agent of the sheikh.
-
AppealSingapore Court of Appeal rules on permission to appeal
The Court of Appeal of Singapore issued grounds of decision in Mazzagatti’s application for permission to appeal a Singapore High Court ruling connected to the API dispute.
Mazzagatti, Francesco v Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 46
-
OtherReuters reports Mazzagatti sued over alleged €143.8M misappropriation
Reuters reported that API accused Viaro Energy chief executive Francesco Mazzagatti of being involved in misappropriating at least €143.8M.
Viaro CEO accused in UK lawsuit of forging documents to steal millions
-
FilingAlliance Petrochemical issues its claim in the Commercial Court
Alliance Petrochemical claims breach of trust and fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, unjust enrichment, conversion, and conspiracy. It seeks to trace funds into the Viaro companies and RockRose.
Find Case Law: [2026] EWHC 2178 (Comm)Find Case Law: [2026] EWCA Civ 1403
-
FilingAPI sues Mazzagatti in Singapore
Alliance Petrochemical Investment first brought proceedings against Mazzagatti in Singapore before issuing the English claim.
Mazzagatti, Francesco v Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd
-
FilingAlliance Petrochemical sues Mazzagatti in Singapore
The English courts later took this earlier claim into account when weighing Alliance Petrochemical’s delay in seeking a freezing order.
Find Case Law: [2026] EWHC 2178 (Comm)Find Case Law: [2026] EWCA Civ 1403
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will Alliance Petrochemical’s Commercial Court claim against Mazzagatti and Dixit Dominus stand on June 30, 2029?
- API and defendants settle32%
- Still pending on June 30, 202930%
- API wins at trial20%
- Defendants defeat claim at trial10%
- Claim discontinued or struck out8%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2029in 32 months
- Record confidence
- Low
Settlement is the single most likely outcome by June 30, 2029, at 32%, with continued pendency close behind at 30%. The claim survived strike-out in the Court of Appeal on November 3, 2026. But pleadings are still being amended and disclosure has not started, so a trial judgment within the window is uncertain.
How it resolves. Resolves on public records such as court judgments, orders, and reliable press reports. “Settlement” if the parties announce or the court records a settlement, consent order, or Tomlin order disposing of the English claim. “API wins at trial” if a first-instance trial judgment awards API money or proprietary relief on any claim against either defendant. “Defendants defeat claim at trial” if a trial judgment dismisses all of API’s claims. “Claim discontinued or struck out” if API discontinues or the court strikes out or summarily dismisses the whole claim without a settlement. “Still pending” if none of these has occurred by June 30, 2029. Appeals after a trial judgment do not change the outcome.
Reasoning
Starting point. English Commercial Court fraud and breach-of-trust claims that survive strike-out and proceed toward disclosure: Roughly 60% to 70% of Commercial Court claims settle before judgment. Fewer than one in five reach a trial judgment. Large multi-jurisdiction fraud claims often take four to five years from issue to trial.
Most Commercial Court claims settle before judgment, roughly 60% to 70%, and few reach trial, which anchors settlement as the leading outcome. Posture favors API continuing. The Court of Appeal preserved the forged loan allegations, the sanctions illegality defense is gone, and most of the defendants’ contribution claim was set aside. Timing cuts the other way. API must serve amended statements of case, disclosure has not begun, and the record shows no trial date, so a judgment by mid-2029 is possible but not assured. Incentives point both ways. The refusal of a freezing order reduces API’s leverage and recovery security, but the forgery allegations carry reputational risk for a chief executive tied to a North Sea business. The defendants have fought every step, including parallel litigation in Dubai and Singapore, which suggests they may hold out for trial. If the case is tried, API’s surviving documentary case gives it the edge, so I put API’s trial win at twice the defendants’. The leading alternative to settlement is that the case remains pending on June 30, 2029, given the pace so far.
Claim survived strike-out and appeal on November 3, 2026 · No disclosure yet and no trial date in the record · Freezing order refused, limiting API’s settlement leverage · Reputational risk from forged sheikh loan allegations · Defendants’ pattern of contesting every step across jurisdictions
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 8, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made