Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

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

  • Partner
  • London
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

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

  • Partner
  • London
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

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

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

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

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

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Eggs-actly in breach for director in Fabergé brand

The Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands considered the Grand Court’s decision in Renova v Gilbertson. At first instance, Renova Resources Private Equity Limited (Renova) who was a 50 per cent shareholder of Pallinghurst (Cayman) General Part LP (GP) Limited (the Company) had brought a derivative action against one of its directors, Mr Gilbertson, for breach of his fiduciary duties to the Company.

The Grand Court found that Mr Gilbertson wrongly diverted away for his own benefit the valuable economic benefit of developing, exploiting and managing the Fabergé brand (responsible for the renowned jeweled eggs) from the Company. The Grand Court held that Mr Gilbertson had breached his fiduciary duties as director of the Company.  The Grand Court also held that the co-defendant, a company used by the trustee of Mr Gilbertson’s family trust to fund his share of the Fabergé acquisition (Autumn), was liable in knowing receipt. Mr Gilbertson appealed against the first instance decision. Renova cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dealt with a number of legal points raised in the grounds of appeal.  The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decisions on:

  • Standing of Renova to bring a derivative action to pursue claims on behalf of the Master Fund, of which the order granting leave was left unchallenged by Mr Gilbertson;
  • Breach of director fiduciary duties owed by Mr Gilbertson in acting as he did with regards to the Fabergé acquisition;
  • The value at nil of the loss which Mr Gilbertson was liable to make good to the Master fund by way of equitable compensation on the basis of the trial judge’s evaluation of expert witness evidence;
  • Autumn being in knowing receipt in the Fabergé acquisition given its relationship with Mr Gilbertson, the property acquired, the person from whom it acquired the property from, and its state of knowledge at the time of receipt; and
  • Autumn not being a constructive trustee on behalf of the Master Fund in the Fabergé acquisition.

The only (and relatively minor) points the Court of Appeal overruled as to the trial judge were his decisions: (i)  to award pre-judgment interest for which he held Autumn accountable; and (ii)  to make no order as to costs.  The Gilbertson parties were directed to pay the costs of their counterclaims on the indemnity basis. The Court of Appeal judgment confirms the strict nature of a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty and will continue to take a dim view as to directors surreptitiously diverting its company’s business opportunities for personal profit.  Furthermore, the Court of Appeal decision emphasizes the importance for trustees to be genuinely independent and to exercise a proper level of due diligence.

Eggs-actly in breach for director in Fabergé brand

Leave A Comment