Vivendi SA Centenary Holdings Iii Ltd v Richards & Ors

Vivendi SA Centenary Holdings Iii Ltd v Richards & Ors

Mr Bloch, as director, and Mr Richards, as shadow director, acted dishonestly and in breach of fiduciary duty by causing CH3 to make payments not in the interests of the company or its creditors, seeking to extract cash before insolvency. Vivendi's claims are not statute-barred due to section 21(1)(a) Limitation Act 1980, as dishonesty was established.

Parties
Claimant: Vivendi SA; Claimant: Centenary Holdings III Limited; Defendant: Murray Richards; Defendant: Stephen Bloch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim succeeds against both Mr Richards and Mr Bloch.
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Shadow Directors, Dishonest Assistance, Limitation Periods, Fiduciary Duties, Fraudulent Breach of Trust
Company Law Equity Insolvency Directors' Duties Shadow Directors Dishonest Assistance Limitation Periods Fiduciary Duties +1 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivendi SA

Claimant

Centenary Holdings III Limited

Claimant

Murray Richards

Defendant

Stephen Bloch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bloch breached his duty of good faith as director of CH3 in causing nine payments totalling over £10 million
  2. 2 Whether Mr Richards, as shadow director, owed and breached similar duties
  3. 3 Whether Mr Richards dishonestly assisted Mr Bloch's breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bloch, as director, and Mr Richards, as shadow director, acted dishonestly and in breach of fiduciary duty by causing CH3 to make payments not in the interests of the company or its creditors, seeking to extract cash before insolvency. Vivendi's claims are not statute-barred due to section 21(1)(a) Limitation Act 1980, as dishonesty was established.

Court Disposition

Claim succeeds against both Mr Richards and Mr Bloch.

Orders

  • Parties to agree an order reflecting the judgment; if not, court will hear further argument as to relief.