Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLP v Blue Skye Special Opportunites Fund LP & Ors [2013] EWHC 14 (Comm) (16 January 2013)

Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLP v Blue Skye Special Opportunites Fund LP & Ors [2013] EWHC 14 (Comm) (16 January 2013)

It is neither necessary nor appropriate to determine the applicable law of the tort claims or to strike out or summarily dismiss the claims at this interlocutory stage. The claimants have a real prospect of establishing at trial that the applicable law is English law and that they have suffered actionable loss. The existence of factual disputes and the need for a full investigation at trial preclude summary determination. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment are dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 14 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC; Claimant: ZBS Capital Partners L.P.; Claimant: Cypress Way European Asset Investors II Sàrl; Defendant: Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund L.P.; Defendant: Mr Salvatore Cerchione; Defendant: Mr Gianluca D'Avanzo; Defendant: Stepstone Acquisition Sàrl (in bankruptcy, represented by its Official Receiver); 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: Mrs Valerie Emond; Defendant: Mr Geoffrey Henry; Defendant: Mr Alberto Morandini; Defendant: BSkye Investors Sàrl
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Applicable Law (rome Ii), Insolvency Act 1986 S.423 425, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duties, Dishonest Assistance, Jurisdiction, Contribution and Indemnity
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Conflict of Laws Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Applicable Law (rome Ii) Insolvency Act 1986 S.423 425 Unlawful Means Conspiracy +5 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC

Claimant

ZBS Capital Partners L.P.

Claimant

Cypress Way European Asset Investors II Sàrl

Claimant

Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund L.P.

Defendant

Mr Salvatore Cerchione

Defendant

Mr Gianluca D'Avanzo

Defendant

Stepstone Acquisition Sàrl (in bankruptcy, represented by its Official Receiver)

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

Mrs Valerie Emond

Defendant

Mr Geoffrey Henry

Defendant

Mr Alberto Morandini

Defendant

BSkye Investors Sàrl

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims in tort/delict should be struck out or summarily dismissed for lack of reasonable cause of action or no real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the applicable law of the tort claims is English or Luxembourg law under Rome II Regulation
  3. 3 Whether amendments to plead indemnity claims and other amendments should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

It is neither necessary nor appropriate to determine the applicable law of the tort claims or to strike out or summarily dismiss the claims at this interlocutory stage. The claimants have a real prospect of establishing at trial that the applicable law is English law and that they have suffered actionable loss. The existence of factual disputes and the need for a full investigation at trial preclude summary determination. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications to strike out and for summary judgment refused.
  • Costs reserved or to be determined.