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
  • Hong Kong
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
Lilla Zuill
Lilla Zuill
  • Lilla Zuill

  • Partner
  • Bermuda
James Noble
James Noble
  • James Noble

  • Partner
  • Singapore
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
  • Bermuda
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
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

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

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

When the evidence just doesn’t fit

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, the Court dismissed an application brought by dissenting shareholders seeking draconian orders. In the ever contentious and litigious environment of shareholder appraisal actions, the Cayman Court was asked to entertain a relatively novel application baring the company from adducing the evidence of its valuation expert.

In these cases, both the company and the dissenters are directed by the Court to appoint a valuation expert and each party relies on this expert evidence to advance their position on the fair value of the company’s shares.

In this matter, the company and dissenters engaged in a lengthy dispute on the disclosure made by the company. The Court ultimately appointed a third party forensic expert to assist with the discovery process. The forensic audit commenced, and both parties were directed to engage with the forensic auditor on a regular basis to ensure the stakeholders were satisfied with progress. At the unilateral direction of the dissenting shareholders, the forensic audit ceased. The dissenters complained, amongst other things, that the company, or certain of its staff, were not properly engaging with the audit. Shortly thereafter, the dissenters brought an application requesting that the Court direct the audit to cease permanently and that the conduct of the company was such that it warranted an order barring the company a right to adduce expert evidence and relying upon any factual evidence.

Considering the evidence relied upon by the dissenters to support their application, the Court held that “the evidence and circumstances of this application does not, in my judgment, reach the level that would be required in order to justify the draconian relief sought”. The Court also held that the dissenters had failed to demonstrate why their application should be allowed. Indeed, the judgment held that in the circumstances i.e. the lack of evidence, it was not necessary therefore to consider the Court’s powers to disallow or disbar evidence.

In dismissing the application, the Court directed the forensic audit to resume.

Balance

Leave A Comment