Nopporn Suppipat & Ors v Nop Narongdej & Ors

Nopporn Suppipat & Ors v Nop Narongdej & Ors

The court found that the defendants (Khun Nop, Khun Nuttawut, Khun Weerawong, and the WEH Managers) committed a dishonest asset-stripping scheme in breach of s. 420 TCCC (based on s. 350 Penal Code), causing the claimants' companies to lose the ability to enforce arbitral awards and recover payment under the REC SPAs. The misrepresentation claims were time-barred under Thai law. The asset-stripping claims succeeded, entitling the claimants to damages equivalent to the sums due under the arbitral awards, plus interest, and proprietary remedies over the 1.25% WEH shareholdings received as bribes. Relief under s. 423 Insolvency Act was refused for lack of sufficient connection with England.

Parties
First Claimant: Mr Nopporn Suppipat; Second Claimant: Symphony Partners Limited; Third Claimant: Next Global Investments Limited; Fourth Claimant: Dynamic Link Ventures Limited; First Defendant: Mr Nop Narongdej; Second Defendant: Ms Emma Louise Collins; Third Defendant: Mr Thun Reansuwan; Fourth Defendant: Mr Aman Lakhaney; Fifth Defendant: Ms Khadija Billal Siddique; Sixth Defendant: Colome Investments Limited; Seventh Defendant: Keleston Holdings Limited; Eighth Defendant: ALKBS LLC; Ninth Defendant: Golden Music Limited; Tenth Defendant: Siam Commercial Bank Public Company Limited; Eleventh Defendant: Khun Arthid Nanthawithaya; Twelfth Defendant: Cornwallis Limited; Thirteenth Defendant: Khun Weerawong Chittmittrapap; Fourteenth Defendant: Dr Kasem Narongdej; Fifteenth Defendant: Ms Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda; Sixteenth Defendant: Mr Pradej Kitti-Itsaranon; Seventeenth Defendant: Mr Nuttawut Phowborom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Trial (england and Wales) / Final Judgment After 20 Week Trial
Outcome
Misrepresentation claims dismissed as time-barred; asset-stripping claims under s. 420 TCCC (based on s. 350 Penal Code) and s. 432 TCCC succeed against primary and secondary participants; proprietary remedies and damages awarded; s. 423 Insolvency Act claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Asset Stripping, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Bribery, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Directors' Duties, Cheating Against Creditors, Constructive Trust, Tracing, Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction and Forum, Remedies for Fraud, Insolvency Act S.423, Thai Law (tccc, Penal Code), English Law (fiduciary, Conspiracy, Bribery)
Civil Fraud Commercial Law Company Law Conflict of Laws Banking Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Asset Stripping Breach of Fiduciary Duty +12 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Nopporn Suppipat

First Claimant

Symphony Partners Limited

Second Claimant

Next Global Investments Limited

Third Claimant

Dynamic Link Ventures Limited

Fourth Claimant

Mr Nop Narongdej

First Defendant

Ms Emma Louise Collins

Second Defendant

Mr Thun Reansuwan

Third Defendant

Mr Aman Lakhaney

Fourth Defendant

Ms Khadija Billal Siddique

Fifth Defendant

Colome Investments Limited

Sixth Defendant

Keleston Holdings Limited

Seventh Defendant

ALKBS LLC

Eighth Defendant

Golden Music Limited

Ninth Defendant

Siam Commercial Bank Public Company Limited

Tenth Defendant

Khun Arthid Nanthawithaya

Eleventh Defendant

Cornwallis Limited

Twelfth Defendant

Khun Weerawong Chittmittrapap

Thirteenth Defendant

Dr Kasem Narongdej

Fourteenth Defendant

Ms Khunying Korkaew Boonyachinda

Fifteenth Defendant

Mr Pradej Kitti-Itsaranon

Sixteenth Defendant

Mr Nuttawut Phowborom

Seventeenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Trial (england and Wales) / Final Judgment After 20 Week Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants committed fraudulent misrepresentation inducing the sale of REC shares
  2. 2 Whether the asset-stripping sequence was unlawful under Thai law (s. 420 TCCC, s. 350 Penal Code)
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to damages and/or proprietary remedies for asset-stripping and breach of fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants (Khun Nop, Khun Nuttawut, Khun Weerawong, and the WEH Managers) committed a dishonest asset-stripping scheme in breach of s. 420 TCCC (based on s. 350 Penal Code), causing the claimants' companies to lose the ability to enforce arbitral awards and recover payment under the REC SPAs. The misrepresentation claims were time-barred under Thai law. The asset-stripping claims succeeded, entitling the claimants to damages equivalent to the sums due under the arbitral awards, plus interest, and proprietary remedies over the 1.25% WEH shareholdings received as bribes. Relief under s. 423 Insolvency Act was refused for lack of sufficient connection with England.

Court Disposition

Misrepresentation claims dismissed as time-barred; asset-stripping claims under s. 420 TCCC (based on s. 350 Penal Code) and s. 432 TCCC succeed against primary and secondary participants; proprietary remedies and damages awarded; s. 423 Insolvency Act claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to Symphony, NGI, and DLV for outstanding sums under arbitral awards (principal and interest) against Khun Nop, Khun Nuttawut, Khun Weerawong, and the WEH Managers, jointly and severally with accessories.
  • Declaration that WEH Managers hold 1.25% WEH shareholdings (and traceable proceeds) on constructive trust for claimants; proprietary remedy granted.