Lefevre v Beau Vallon Properties & Ors (CC08/2017) [2020] SCSC 435 (2 February 2020)

Lefevre v Beau Vallon Properties & Ors (CC08/2017) [2020] SCSC 435 (2 February 2020)

The Court found that the loans to BVP were not fictitious and, on the evidence, not unlawful under the IBC Act. The loans were to be included as liabilities in the share valuation. The directors' conduct was oppressive and prejudicial to the petitioner, warranting their removal. The auditors failed in their duties...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] SCSC 435
Parties
Petitioner: Natalie Lefevre; 1st Respondent: Beau Vallon Properties Limited; 2nd Respondent: Drambois Investments Limited; 3rd Respondent: Concordia Investments Limited; 4th Respondent: Vadim Zaslonov; 5th Respondent: Yuri Khlebnikov
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
2 February 2020
Case Number
CC08/2017
Procedural Posture
Company Law Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; judgment for petitioner
Legal Topics
Minority Shareholder Oppression, Director Misconduct, Share Valuation, Auditor Responsibility, International Business Companies, Damages
Source Language
english
Company Law Corporate Governance Minority Shareholder Oppression Director Misconduct Share Valuation Auditor Responsibility International Business Companies Damages

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natalie Lefevre

Petitioner

Beau Vallon Properties Limited

1st Respondent

Drambois Investments Limited

2nd Respondent

Concordia Investments Limited

3rd Respondent

Vadim Zaslonov

4th Respondent

Yuri Khlebnikov

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loans to BVP were fictitious
  2. 2 Whether loans to BVP were lawful under the IBC Act
  3. 3 Whether loans should be included as BVP liabilities for share valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the loans to BVP were not fictitious and, on the evidence, not unlawful under the IBC Act. The loans were to be included as liabilities in the share valuation. The directors' conduct was oppressive and prejudicial to the petitioner, warranting their removal. The auditors failed in their duties and were also to be removed. The petitioner was entitled to damages for moral harm and expenses.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; judgment for petitioner

Orders

  • Petitioner's shares in BVP valued at SCR 4,028,859.20
  • BVP to pay petitioner SCR 100,000 in moral damages