Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLP & Ors v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP (A Firm) & Ors

Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLP & Ors v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP (A Firm) & Ors

Further disclosure as sought was refused as disproportionate and unnecessary to police the injunction. No further fortification of the cross-undertaking was ordered as the risk of loss was not sufficiently evidenced. Security for costs was ordered against the claimants due to the winding down of the first claimant and illiquidity of assets. Stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 was granted for claims against parties to the arbitration agreement but refused for non-signatory individuals. Costs of the defendant managers' applications were ordered to be in the case, not awarded outright.

Parties
Claimant: FORTRESS VALUE RECOVERY FUND I LLC; Claimant: ZBS CAPITAL PARTNERS L. P.; Claimant: CYPRESS WAY EUROPEAN ASSET INVESTORS II SARL; Defendant: BLUE SKYE SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND L. P.; Defendant: MR SALVATORE CERCHIONE; Defendant: MR GIANLUCA D'AVANZO; Defendant: STEPSTONE ACQUISITION Sàrl; Defendant: BLUE SKYE GP LTD; Defendant: DBZ SPECIAL INVESTMENT (LUX) Sàrl; Defendant: BENLOMOND CORPORATION Sàrl; Defendant: BLUE SKYE MANAGEMENT Sàrl; Defendant: BLUE SKYE CAPITAL Sàrl; Defendant: BLUE SKYE MANAGEMENT Sàrl SCS; Defendant: GREENTEA S. A.; Defendant: BLUE SKYE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS Sàrl; Defendant: OMEGA SKYE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; Defendant: OMEGA PARTNERS Sàrl; Defendant: MR MATTIA MIRKO DANESE; Defendant: MR FRANCESCO PAOLO PADULA; Defendant: MR GIOVANNI CASLINI; Defendant: BSKYE INVESTORS Sàrl
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Applications (injunction Return Date, Disclosure, Fortification, Security for Costs, Stay Pending Arbitration, Costs)
Outcome
Applications allowed in part, refused in part.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Obligations, Security for Costs, Arbitration Stay, Anti Suit Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Insolvency Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Obligations Security for Costs Arbitration Stay +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FORTRESS VALUE RECOVERY FUND I LLC

Claimant

ZBS CAPITAL PARTNERS L. P.

Claimant

CYPRESS WAY EUROPEAN ASSET INVESTORS II SARL

Claimant

BLUE SKYE SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND L. P.

Defendant

MR SALVATORE CERCHIONE

Defendant

MR GIANLUCA D'AVANZO

Defendant

STEPSTONE ACQUISITION Sàrl

Defendant

BLUE SKYE GP LTD

Defendant

DBZ SPECIAL INVESTMENT (LUX) Sàrl

Defendant

BENLOMOND CORPORATION Sàrl

Defendant

BLUE SKYE MANAGEMENT Sàrl

Defendant

BLUE SKYE CAPITAL Sàrl

Defendant

BLUE SKYE MANAGEMENT Sàrl SCS

Defendant

GREENTEA S. A.

Defendant

BLUE SKYE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS Sàrl

Defendant

OMEGA SKYE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Defendant

OMEGA PARTNERS Sàrl

Defendant

MR MATTIA MIRKO DANESE

Defendant

MR FRANCESCO PAOLO PADULA

Defendant

MR GIOVANNI CASLINI

Defendant

BSKYE INVESTORS Sàrl

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Applications (injunction Return Date, Disclosure, Fortification, Security for Costs, Stay Pending Arbitration, Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure should be ordered against Mr Cerchione and Mr D’Avanzo
  2. 2 Whether fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages should be increased
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

Further disclosure as sought was refused as disproportionate and unnecessary to police the injunction. No further fortification of the cross-undertaking was ordered as the risk of loss was not sufficiently evidenced. Security for costs was ordered against the claimants due to the winding down of the first claimant and illiquidity of assets. Stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 was granted for claims against parties to the arbitration agreement but refused for non-signatory individuals. Costs of the defendant managers' applications were ordered to be in the case, not awarded outright.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part, refused in part.

Orders

  • Claimants' application for further disclosure refused except as agreed between parties regarding fees and expenses.
  • No further fortification of cross-undertaking ordered.