Freezing
Appeal Judges sever penal provisions to grant SEC £2m UK Freezer
The SEC had issued proceedings in the US against Manterfield for an alleged fraud which duped Taiwanese investors to the tune of around £34m. Those proceedings involved a claim for "disgorgement of ill gotten gains" as well as a claim for a civil monetary penalty. Manterfield sought to appeal a freezing order made against him by a Judge in respect of his UK assets on grounds that the UK Court should not enforce a foreign penal law and also that the Judge should not have dispensed with the undertaking in damages. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments and had no difficultly in severing the "penal" element of the US proceedings from the civil element which was in effect no more than a claim for unjust enrichment.
To view the judgment from the bailii website, please click on the link below.
Appeal Court confirms freezer despite non-disclosure
After a trial of the main action where the appellants were all found liable for making fraudulent misrepresentations, they appealed amongst other things against the trial Judge's refusal to discharge a freezer notwithstanding there had been material non disclosure. The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's decision and because the non disclosure was remedied shortly after the granting of the injunction and the Judge granted a post judgment freezer these were special circumstances which justified not discharging the injunction. The time for assessing the evidence was held to be the date of the discharge application not the time when the injunction was granted.
To view the judgment from the bailii website, please click on the link below.
Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others [2009] EWCA Civ 169, 13 March 2009
Judge grants Freezer and Mandatory Transfer Order in support of Arbitration
In the course of arbitration proceedings between two ex-city firm solicitors the counterclaiming defendant Mr Emmott obtained an order from the Tribunal that certain shares in dispute between the parties "the Steppe Shares" should be transferred by the claimant, MWP, to be held to the order of the Chairman of the Tribunal. MWP failed to comply with this order and one of its directors transferred the shares in MWP itself to a Liechtenstein Anstalt. Emmott applied to the High Court and secured a freezing order against MWP as well as an order compelling them to comply with the Tribunal's order regarding transfer of the Steppe Shares. The Court made it clear that it was fully prepared to support the Tribunal's order without undertaking a review of the Tribunal's decision making process on the basis that judicial interference with the arbitral process should be kept to a minimum.
To view the judgment from the bailii website, please click on the link below.
Flouting Freezer lands Respondent in jail for 9 months
In 2004 Microsoft sued Mr Omesuh and his company ITAC for various trademark infringements. In 2006 the case concluded with the Court ordering Omesuh to pay Microsoft £1m in damages and a permanent injunction regarding future infringement. In 2008 Omesuh recommenced his infringing activities and Microsoft obtained Search and Freezing orders against him in support of a multi million pound claim. Under the Freezer Omesuh was obliged to disclose his world wide assets but in responding he declared on oath that he had none other than his business which was in Administration. After an extensive investigation Microsoft established that Omesuh had a hidden network of offshore companies and bank accounts and had bought and sold assets in breach of the Freezer. The Judge sentenced Omesuh to 9 months in prison for breaching the terms of the Freezer.
Microsoft v Omesuh [2009] EWCH 51
« Previous | Contents | Next »