Miner ENRC, UK fraud watchdog, law firm Dechert resolve lawsuit over criminal probe

• ENRC sought approximately $76 million in unnecessary investigation costs and $90 million in increased borrowing costs, plus interest
• A court previously ruled the SFO would not have opened the investigation had it not induced ENRC's former Dechert lawyer to act against the miner's interests
• The settlement terms remain confidential, announced just before the High Court was set to deliver its damages ruling

Summary

Kazakh mining company ENRC, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and law firm Dechert have settled a protracted lawsuit stemming from a decade-long criminal investigation into alleged bribery. The settlement, announced September 2, resolves litigation dating back to the SFO's probe into purported bribery by ENRC to secure mining contracts in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 2009 and 2012.

Key Details:

ENRC, a former FTSE 100 company, sued the SFO and Dechert claiming the fraud watchdog would not have launched its investigation without first inducing ENRC's former Dechert lawyer, Neil Gerrard, to act against the miner's interests. London's High Court supported this assertion.

Financial Claims:

ENRC sought approximately $76 million in "unnecessary costs" incurred during the SFO investigation and around $90 million in increased borrowing costs after the probe became public, plus interest.

Resolution:

The SFO closed its investigation in 2023 without filing criminal charges, citing "insufficient admissible evidence to prosecute." After a damages trial earlier this year, all parties reached a confidential settlement before the High Court could deliver its ruling. Settlement terms were not disclosed.

Additional Context:

ENRC had separately sued the SFO, a former case controller, and a former employee for allegedly leaking information to journalists; that case was also resolved.

Market Implications:

This settlement closes a significant legal chapter for ENRC and the SFO, eliminating ongoing litigation uncertainty. The confidential nature of the agreement leaves questions about financial impact, though the resolution removes potential reputational risks for all parties involved.