Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund & Anor v Rouvroy & Anor

Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund & Anor v Rouvroy & Anor

The parties concluded a binding and enforceable Funding Agreement (as varied), which the defendants breached. The agreement was not penal or unfair under English law or consumer protection statutes. The court had jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation. The claimants are entitled to payment under the termination provision and damages for loss of the call option. The claims in deceit fail for lack of dishonesty and/or reliance. The counterclaim fails as Astin did not breach FSA rules and no loss was proved.

Parties
Claimant: Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund; Claimant: Astin Capital Management Limited; Defendant: Jacques Rouvroy; Defendant: Krzystof Trylinski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract and Tort Claim With Counterclaim / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claimants succeed on contract claims; claims in deceit and counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Breach of Contract, Damages, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Financial Services and Markets Act Compliance, Counterclaim for Statutory Breach
Contract Law Tort Law Financial Services Regulation Civil Procedure Formation of Contract Breach of Contract Damages Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation +4 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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund

Claimant

Astin Capital Management Limited

Claimant

Jacques Rouvroy

Defendant

Krzystof Trylinski

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract and Tort Claim With Counterclaim / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the parties conclude a binding contract (Funding Agreement)?
  2. 2 Was the Funding Agreement enforceable and not penal or unfair?
  3. 3 Did the defendants make a fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit)?

Ratio Decidendi

The parties concluded a binding and enforceable Funding Agreement (as varied), which the defendants breached. The agreement was not penal or unfair under English law or consumer protection statutes. The court had jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation. The claimants are entitled to payment under the termination provision and damages for loss of the call option. The claims in deceit fail for lack of dishonesty and/or reliance. The counterclaim fails as Astin did not breach FSA rules and no loss was proved.

Court Disposition

Claimants succeed on contract claims; claims in deceit and counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Maple Leaf €7,499,986.50 plus any loss from sale of warrants, fees, and expenses under the termination provision.
  • Defendants to pay Astin €2,503,500 as damages (subject to further submissions on form of relief).