Connect with us

Foreign

Eroton Exploration To Be Taken Over In UK Over $16.6m Debt

Published

on

Eroton Exploration and Production Company Limited, a Nigerian oil firm is in fresh crisis over alleged $16.6 million debt in the United Kingdom.

Premium Times reports that a judge of the High Court of England and Wales has ordered the appointment of receivers over oil revenues owed to Eroton Exploration and Production Company Limited, in a move aimed at enforcing a multimillion-dollar judgment secured by Brightwaters Energy Limited.

In a ruling delivered on 17 February, Justice Butcher granted Brightwaters’ application for a receivership by way of equitable execution, holding that it was “just and convenient” in the circumstances.

Both Brightwaters and Eroton are Nigerian companies. Their dispute stems from services and materials Brightwaters supplied to Eroton in Nigeria.

On 21 June 2022, the High Court in Lagos entered a consent judgment against Eroton and Energy Link Infrastructure Ltd (ELI), making them jointly and severally liable to pay $25,152,608. Although $3.5 million was later paid, a significant balance remained outstanding.

In November 2025, the Nigerian judgment was registered in the King’s Bench Division of the English High Court under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920.

The English court recorded that $16,652,608 was still unpaid, with post-judgment interest accruing at eight per cent annually.

Brightwaters then sought the appointment of receivers over oil revenues allegedly payable to Eroton under a contract covering the export of 32,000 barrels of oil per day from OML 18, an oilfield in which Eroton holds an interest.

The court was prepared to infer that the contract was governed by English law and provided for arbitration seated in England.

Asset preservation concerns
At an earlier without-notice hearing in November 2025, the court issued an Asset Preservation and Disclosure Order (APDO), compelling Eroton to disclose detailed information about its oil revenues and restraining it from dissipating those funds.

According to the ruling, Eroton did not fully comply with the disclosure requirements. While some financial information was later provided, the judge found it amounted to only partial and inadequate compliance.

In deciding whether to appoint receivers, the court applied principles from earlier authorities, emphasising that the central consideration is the “demands of justice” and whether ordinary enforcement methods face real obstacles. Although receivership should not be ordered if it would be futile, it is sufficient that there is a genuine prospect it will aid enforcement.

Eroton’s objections dismissed

Eroton raised five main objections, all of which were rejected.

It argued that the oil revenues were already subject to security in favour of Guaranty Trust Bank plc (GT Bank), including an all-assets debenture and a later charge, making any receivership ineffective.

The court disagreed, holding that even if the security arrangements amounted to an assignment by way of security, Eroton retained an equity of redemption — itself a valuable asset capable of supporting a receivership order. The judge further found there was at least a reasonable prospect that receivers could assist enforcement, even subject to GT Bank’s prior rights.

Eroton also contended that because Brightwaters had initiated winding-up proceedings in Nigeria, it should not simultaneously pursue enforcement in England. The judge described this as an “unattractive submission,” noting that Eroton had resisted and delayed the insolvency proceedings. Filing a winding-up petition, he held, does not prevent a creditor from pursuing other enforcement avenues in different jurisdictions.

The company further argued that there was insufficient connection to England to justify the order. However, the court pointed out that the Nigerian judgment had been registered as an English judgment and that the oil sale contract appeared to be governed by English law. These factors, the judge said, established an adequate connection and satisfied principles of comity.

Eroton maintained that GTBank should have been notified before any receivership order was granted. The judge found no procedural requirement under CPR Part 69 to notify secured creditors in advance, though the order allows GT Bank or other affected parties to apply to vary or set it aside.

Finally, Eroton alleged that Brightwaters failed to make full and frank disclosure at the earlier without-notice hearing by not specifically referring to registered charges in GT Bank’s favour. While the judge said it would have been preferable to expressly mention the charges, he concluded the omission was not material and did not mislead the court. He also noted that the present ruling followed a fully contested inter partes hearing.

Court’s conclusion
Taking all circumstances into account, the court held that the outstanding debt is substantial and that enforcement through ordinary means had proved difficult.

It found that identifiable oil revenues were due and would continue to accrue, and that appointing receivers offered a reasonable prospect of advancing enforcement without infringing third-party proprietary rights.

The court therefore ordered the appointment of receivers over the oil revenues owed to Eroton, stating that the decision aligns with the policy of English law that judgments — including registered foreign judgments — should be complied with and, where necessary, enforced.

Source: Premium Times.
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply
Advertisement

Trending