Renova Resources Private Equity Ltd v Gilbertson

JurisdictionCayman Islands
Judge(Foster, Ag. J.)
Judgment Date14 April 2009
CourtGrand Court (Cayman Islands)
Date14 April 2009
Grand Court

(Foster, Ag. J.)

RENOVA RESOURCES PRIVATE EQUITY LIMITED
and
GILBERTSON and FOUR OTHERS

R. Millett, Q.C. and J.S. Eldridge for the plaintiff;

R. Miles, Q.C. and A. Choo Choy, Q.C. for the first and fifth defendants.

Cases cited:

(1) Airey v. Cordell, [2007] Bus. L.R. 391; [2007] BCC 785; [2006] EWHC 2728 (Ch), not followed.

(2) Armitage v. Nurse, [1998] Ch. 241; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 1046; [1997] 2 All E.R. 705; [1997] Pens. L.R. 51; (1997), 74 P. & C.R. D13, followed.

(3) Beddoe, In re, Downes v. Cottam, [1893] 1 Ch. 547; (1892), 62 L.J. Ch. 233; 37 Sol. Jo. 99, referred to.

(4) Bristol Fund Ltd., In re, 2008 CILR 317, followed.

(5) Edwards v. Halliwell, [1950] 2 All E.R. 1064; [1950] W.N. 537; (1950), 94 Sol. Jo. 803, referred to.

(6) Foss v. HarbottleENR(1843), 2 Hare 461; 67 E.R. 189, referred to.

(7) Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co., [2002] 2 A.C. 1; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 72; [2001] 1 All E.R. 481; [2001] 1 BCLC 313, considered.

(8) Mumbray v. Lapper, [2005] BCC 990; [2005] EWHC 1152 (Ch), not followed.

(9) Nurcombe v. Nurcombe, [1985] 1 W.L.R. 370; [1985] 1 All E.R. 65; [1984] BCLC 557, considered.

(10) Prudential Assur. Co. Ltd. v. Newman Indus. Ltd. (No. 2), [1981] Ch. 257; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 543; [1980] 2 All E.R. 841; on appeal, [1982] Ch. 204; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 31; [1982] 1 All E.R. 354, followed.

(11) Schultz v. Reynolds, 1992–93 CILR 59, considered.

(12) Smith v. Croft, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 580; [1986] 2 All E.R. 551; [1986] BCLC 207, referred to.

(13) Towers v. African Tug Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 558; (1904), 73 L.J. Ch. 395, referred to.

(14) Viscount of Royal Ct. v. Shelton, 1985–86 JLR 327; [1986] 1 W.L.R. 985; (1986), 2 BCC 99, 134, referred to.

(15) Waddington Ltd. v. Chan Chun Hoo, [2008] HKEC 1498, followed.

(16) Wallersteiner v. Moir (No. 2), [1975] Q.B. 373; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 389; [1975] 1 All E.R. 849, considered.

Legislation construed:

Grand Court Rules 1995, O.15, r.12A: The relevant terms of this rule are set out at para. 2.

Civil Procedure-pleading-fraud-in pleading equitable fraud, not necessary to use words ‘dishonest’ or ‘dishonesty’ if acts self-evidently dishonest-allegation deemed implicit in pleading

Companies-derivative action-leave to continue action-on application for leave, to consider whether plaintiff has prima facie case on merits of claim on behalf of company and that alleged wrongdoing by majority of shareholders able to prevent claim-claim not to be unfounded or speculative, but to be bona fide, in interests of company and sufficiently strong

Companies-derivative action-leave to continue action-on application for leave, not to consider views of hypothetical board of directors unless plaintiff seeks indemnity costs from company-financial consequences of indemnity costs may require court to consider whether hypothetical board would approve expenditure

Companies-derivative action-multiple derivative action-to be permitted in appropriate circumstances when loss to subsidiary causes indirect loss to parent company and its shareholders

Companies-derivative action-reflective loss-to prevent double recovery of losses, parent company or shareholder not allowed to recover reflective loss mirroring that sustained directly by subsidiary-not to prevent shareholder or parent bringing derivative action for relief on behalf of subsidiary

Companies-directors-breach of fiduciary duty-exclusion of liability-irreducible core of obligations owed by fiduciary (duty to act honestly and in good faith) and thus claims for equitable fraud not to be excluded by exemption clause

The plaintiff company applied for leave to continue a derivative action, pursuant to O.15, r.12A(2) of the Grand Court Rules, in which the first and fifth defendants had given notice of their intention to defend.

The plaintiff company was owned by a holding company which was a member of a group of companies. The plaintiff owned 50% of the shares

in the second defendant company with the other 50% being owned by a company of the first defendant, who was also one of its directors. An investment structure was established, pursuant to an agreement between the plaintiff”s holding company and the first defendant, whereby the second defendant company was set up as the general partner of the third defendant company, which in turn was set up as the general partner of the fourth defendant, the master fund. The structure was established to enable ultimately the second defendant company and its shareholders to benefit from the acquisition and management of investments held by and through the master fund. The agreement provided that the first defendant would be in charge of developing and implementing the structure”s investment funds.

The dispute between the parties arose over the acquisition of rights in a well-known commodity. The acquisition was initially proposed by the first defendant as an investment to be held within the investment structure but, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff or the second defendant company, he made alternative arrangements and purchased the rights using funds raised by the fifth defendant, a company owned by the first defendant, and two other investors. This meant that the investment structure was deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the benefits from managing the rights through the master fund as had been allegedly previously agreed.

The plaintiff brought a derivative action on behalf of the second defendant company alleging that (a) the first defendant, as director of that company, acted in breach of his fiduciary duties by diverting away from the company the valuable investment opportunity to acquire the rights; and (b) the fifth defendant company, also owned by the first defendant, had participated knowingly in this breach and consequently received the shares in the acquiring company as constructive trustee for the master fund and the rest of the investment structure. Since the defendants had given notice of their intention to defend, the plaintiff sought leave from the court to continue the action.

The plaintiff submitted that it should be granted leave to continue the action because (a) it had established a prima facie case since the first defendant had agreed that the rights would be acquired by a company in the group for the benefit of the investment structure and had instead diverted the opportunity away from the structure for his own personal benefit and in breach of his duties as director; and (b) the first defendant had an irreducible core of obligations which could not be excluded by the articles of association.

The first defendant submitted in reply that leave should not be granted because (a) the plaintiff would not only need to show a prima facie case but also that a hypothetical independent board of the company would have proceeded with the case; (b) he did not owe any duties in respect of the acquisition of the rights because this investment was always intended to be outside the investment structure; (c) further, he would have the benefit of indemnities in the articles of association which would exonerate him from

liability in respect of any such agreement and that, anyway, the agreement between the parties was null and void so that no duties were owed; (d) the plaintiff had not explicitly pleaded dishonesty; and (e) there was no basis for giving leave for an action on behalf of the company since it had suffered no direct loss and any loss it did suffer would be reflective, for which the plaintiff would be unable to claim.

Held, granting the plaintiff leave to continue its action:

(1) The appropriate test to be adopted in considering an application for leave to continue a derivative action was that the court would have to be satisfied that the plaintiff had a prima facie case both in relation to the merits of the claim on behalf of the company, and that the alleged wrongdoing had been perpetrated by the majority of the shareholders, who were in a position to prevent the company from pursuing the claim against them. The requirement to obtain leave was to protect the defendant against and prevent the wasted expense and time of vexatious litigation. In deciding whether the plaintiff had shown a prima facie claim, the court would have to take a view of its merits, based on its first impressions of all the evidence presented, including that submitted by the defendant. The court would have to be satisfied that it was not unfounded or speculative, that it had been seriously brought on bona fide grounds in the interests of the company and that it was sufficiently strong to justify granting leave to continue the action rather than dismissing it at a preliminary stage. In the instant case, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had a prima facie case against the defendants. The defendant director, with control of 50% of the shares in the company, was in a position to prevent the company from bringing a claim against him and, prima facie, his diversion of a valuable commercial opportunity away from the company for his own personal benefit was a breach of his fiduciary duties to the company. Leave would therefore be granted to continue the action pursuant to O.15, r.12A(2) of the Grand Court Rules (paras. 11–12; paras. 31–32; para. 35; para. 50; para. 73).

(2) When the court was considering whether the plaintiff should have leave to continue a derivative action, there was no need for it to concern itself with the views of a hypothetical board of directors. This test would only be necessary when a plaintiff sought indemnity costs from a company, since in such a case there would be financial consequences for the company and the court would need to consider hypothetically whether a reasonable board of directors would have approved the incurring of such costs. The plaintiff had made it clear that it did not intend to seek indemnity costs and, given there was no evidence that a hypothetical board would not have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Universal Project Management Services Ltd v Fort Gilkicker Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 26 Febrero 2013
    ...into force of the 2006 Act. The Waddington case was followed in relation to the common law of the Cayman Islands in Renova v Gilbertson [2009] CILR 268. 26 In my judgment the common law procedural device called the derivative action was, at least until 2006, clearly sufficiently flexible to......
  • Autumn Holdings Asset Inc. v Renova Resources Private Equity Ltd
    • Cayman Islands
    • Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
    • 12 Septiembre 2017
    ...the Grand Court (Foster, Ag. J.) gave Renova leave to continue the action pursuant to GCR O.15, r.12A(2) (in proceedings reported at 2009 CILR 268). (Renova had indicated that if it were granted leave to continue the action on behalf of the company it would seek leave (on behalf of the comp......
  • Tianrui (International) Holding Company Ltd v China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 6 Abril 2020
    ...All E.R. (Comm) 174; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 567; [2000] C.L.C. 11, considered. (33)Renova Resources Private Equity Ltd. v. Gilbertson, 2009 CILR 268, referred to. (34)Residues Treatment & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Southern Resources, [1988] 6 ACLC 1160, considered. (35)Sherborne Park Residents Co.......
  • Renova Resources v Gilbertson
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 5 Noviembre 2012
    ...Grand Court (Foster, Ag. J.) gave the plaintiff leave to continue the action pursuant to GCR, O.15, r.12A(2) (in proceedings reported at 2009 CILR 268). At a further contested hearing, the Grand Court (Foster, J.) dismissed its application for summary judgment against the counterclaim (in p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Nominee Directors: Caught Between The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 22 Abril 2022
    ...News Bureau Limited v. Cohen and Cohen Associated Limited [1988-1989] CILR 195. 2 Renova Resources Private Equity Limited v. Gilbertson [2009] CILR 268. 3 This position was re-enforced in the English Court of Appeal decision of BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequane SA [2019] EWCA Civ 4 Kinsela v. Russell......
  • Preliminary Hurdle for Cayman Derivative Claims Does Not Bar Suit in New York
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 28 Noviembre 2017
    ...derivative claims on that basis remains undisturbed for now.[16] [1] Renova Res. Private Equity Ltd. v. Gilbertson, [2009] CILR 268, 283 (citing Cayman Islands Grand Court Rule 12A [2] Davis v. Scottish Re Grp. Ltd., No. 111, 2017 NY Slip Op. 08157, 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 3277 (Nov. 20, 2017). [3]...
  • Governance In A Time Of Crisis – Legal Guidance For Fund Boards In COVID-19 Pandemic
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 16 Abril 2020
    ...be inconsistent with the core duties to act honestly and in good faith. See Re Bristol Fund [2008] CILR 317 and Renova v Gilbertson [2009] CILR 268. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific...
  • Derivative Actions
    • British Virgin Islands
    • Mondaq Virgin Islands
    • 5 Agosto 2015
    ...of the holding company and its subsidiary. Following the judgment in Renova Resources Private Equity Ltd v. Gilbertson and Others [2009] CILR 268, in the Cayman Islands, on the other hand, there is greater scope for a shareholder to obtain leave for a multiple derivative action, where, for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • International Multiple Derivative Actions.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 52 No. 1, January 2019
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...SARAH WORTHINGTON, PRINCIPLES OF MODERN COMPANY LAW 643 (9th ed. 2012). (167.) See, e.g., Renova Res. Private Equity Ltd. v. Gilbertson, [2009] CILR 268 at 289 (Cayman Is.) (both the parent and subsidiary were incorporated in Cayman Islands); Flocco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 752 A.......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Offshore Commercial Law in Bermuda - Second Edition Preliminary Sections
    • 30 Agosto 2018
    ...Civil Appeal, November 30, 1977, unreported, Bermuda CA 13.35, 16.61 Renova Resources Private Equity Limited v Gilbertson and Others [2009] CILR 268, Cayman Islands 21.13 Roberts v Minister of Foreign Affairs & Ors (The Bahamas) [2007] UKPC 56, [2008] 3 LRC 261, (2007) 71 WIR 1, [2007] 1 Ex......
  • Bermuda Companies and the Wider Offshore World: An Atlantic and Caribbean Perspective
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Offshore Commercial Law in Bermuda - Second Edition Part IV. Relations with the onshore world
    • 30 Agosto 2018
    ...section 132. 16 In the matter of Bristol Fund Limited [2008] CILR 317; Renova Resources Private Equity Limited v Gilbertson and Others [2009] CILR 268; Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Limited v Peterson and Ekstrom [2011] 2 CILR 203; Cesar Hotelco (Cayman) Limited and Others v Ryan and Fi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT