Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Interim payments jurisdiction applies to fair value claims

Blackwell Partners LLC & Ors v. Qihoo 360

In this recent Grand Court case, the question was whether dissenting shareholders can receive an interim payment in s.238 proceedings (dissenting shareholders seeking fair value). The Dissenters sought an order that the Company make interim payments to them pursuant to GCR O.29 r.10 and r.12. The Company argued that the Dissenters for an interim payment had to be a claimant who is owed a debt or is entitled to damages, or some other sum (such as restitution or an account) and that the Dissenters were not entitled to any of those kind of payments. The Dissenters rights were merely the right to be paid fair value for their shares. Further, the application for interim payment under GCR O.29 r.10 and r.12 should be dismissed because the s.238 Petition was governed by a self-contained statutory code in which there was no scope for any discretionary overlap for interim payments under GCR O.29.

Justice Quinn held that the Dissenters were entitled to an interim payment under GCR O.29 during the s.238 proceedings and that the Petitioner's own stated fair value of the shares pursuant to s.238(8) was considered a "just" amount for the interim payment.

Examining fair value claims

Leave A Comment