UCC -v- Bender 10-Mar-2006 [2006] JRC 034A (10 March 2006)

UCC -v- Bender 10-Mar-2006 [2006] JRC 034A (10 March 2006)

The injunction should not be set aside as the plaintiff has a good arguable case, there was no material failure of full and frank disclosure, and there is a real risk of dissipation. The quantum of the injunction should be based on the highest amount for which the plaintiff has a good arguable case, calculated on the basis of proprietary and personal claims, reinvestment, and interest at 2% over LIBID compounded monthly.

Citation
[2006] JRC 034A
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Silverman; Defendant: Mr Bender; Defendant: Mr Koonmen; Defendant: Bluebird; Defendant: Dovetail
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside or Vary Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction to remain in place, quantum to be recalculated as per judgment
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction (mareva), Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Assignment of Claims, Compound Interest, Proprietary and Personal Claims
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Injunctions Freezing Injunction (mareva) Full and Frank Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Assignment of Claims Compound Interest +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Silverman

Plaintiff

Mr Bender

Defendant

Mr Koonmen

Defendant

Bluebird

Defendant

Dovetail

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside or Vary Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim freezing injunction should be set aside or varied
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure of full and frank disclosure by the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction should not be set aside as the plaintiff has a good arguable case, there was no material failure of full and frank disclosure, and there is a real risk of dissipation. The quantum of the injunction should be based on the highest amount for which the plaintiff has a good arguable case, calculated on the basis of proprietary and personal claims, reinvestment, and interest at 2% over LIBID compounded monthly.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction to remain in place, quantum to be recalculated as per judgment

Orders

  • Application to set aside injunction refused
  • Quantum of injunction to be recalculated based on $59.2 million plus interest at 2% over LIBID compounded monthly from 1 November 2000, with parties to provide calculations