Tue, Feb 9, 2016
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Industry Updates

In ruling of wide significance, Privy Council decides on Fairfield case

Thursday, April 17, 2014
Opalesque Industry Update - On 16 April 2014, the Privy Council ruled in the claims brought by the liquidators of Fairfield, one of the largest feeder funds to have invested into Bernard Madoff’s investment company. The company filed hundreds of claw back claims against investors who had redeemed shares before the Madoff fraud was uncovered, both in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and New York. The total value of these claims is in the region of US$7.5 billion.

The BVI Commercial Court and the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal had dismissed the claims on the basis that the redeemers had given good consideration for the payments they received. Not only did the Privy Council unanimously agree with the courts below on good consideration, it also indicated the claims failed on additional grounds under Fairfield’s articles of association. Delivering the judgment Lord Sumption found that the subscription agreement bound the investor and was primarily concerned with representations and warranties on the investments but did not deal with redemptions which were dealt with in the articles of association.

“This Privy Council ruling cements the decisions taken by the BVI Commercial Court and the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal dismissing the Fairfield liquidators’ claims,” said Harneys’ Global Head of Litigation and Insolvency Phillip Kite. “This test case has implications for liquidators of funds in all common law jurisdictions.”

Harneys has acted for a lead group of defendants in the claw back claims brought by the liquidators of Fairfield throughout the years-long process in the BVI courts.

Lord Sumption also reviewed the articles and the redemption procedure together with the information provided by the professional administrator. These included information concerning the Net Asset Value (NAV) from the following:-

  • An investor website;
  • Investor e-mails each month;
  • Contract notes; and,
  • Summary account details.

The Privy Council stated that the good consideration and defence under the articles were closely related and in approving Barclays Bank Limited v. W.J. Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd (1980) QB 677, said that if a payment made under a mistake discharges a contractual debt of a payee, that sum cannot be recovered unless the mistake is such as to avoid the contract.

Lord Sumption reasoned that Fairfield’s claim to recover the redemption payment would depend on whether it was bound by the redemption terms to make payment which it did make. This in turn depends on whether the effect of those terms is that Fairfield was obliged upon redemption to pay either,

  • The true NAV per share, ascertained in the light of information which subsequently became available about Madoff’s funds, or
  • The NAV per share which was determined by the directors at the time of redemption.

Lord Sumption said that (ii) was the only reasonable conclusion and continued that a certificate had no standard meaning and what constitutes a certificate would depend on the commercial context in which it appeared. A certificate would mean a statement or writing, issued by an authoritative source, communicated to a recipient, in a form which showed it intended to be definitive and the Privy Council found that the monthly e-mails, contract notes and monthly statements would all be certificates within the meaning of the articles.

What do you think?

   Use "anonymous" as my name    |   Alert me via email on new comments   |   
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing


  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. How Einhorn survived a nightmare year[more]

    From Bloomberg.com: Even when a hedge fund has an awful year, which was the case for David Einhorn's Greenlight Capital, there are lessons to be learned. Many funds would have had a tough time surviving a year like Einhorn experienced in 2015, when all the stars seemed to align against him and Green

  2. Legal - Hedge fund founder wins early release in U.S. insider trading case, Gramercy seeking $1.3 billion from Peru over land-bond dispute[more]

    Hedge fund founder wins early release in U.S. insider trading case From Reuters/Streetinsider.com: Former hedge fund manager Doug Whitman on Tuesday won a reprieve from serving the remainder of his two-year sentence for insider trading after several judges expressed skepticism that his 2

  3. Investing - David Einhorn finds a winner in Michael Kors[more]

    From Thestreetinsider.com: Greenlight Capital hedge fund manger David Einhorn took his lumps in 2015. The fund lost over 20 percent on the year amid bets gone bad being long a plunging SunEdison and short a couple high-flying FANG stocks. However, today Einhorn is again showing his stock picking pro

  4. Investing - Avenue Capital's Marc Lasry: We like European bank loans, Comment: A bunch of hedge fund managers are chasing the 'dream of crushing a major structural problem'[more]

    Avenue Capital's Marc Lasry: We like European bank loans From CNBC.com: European banks are under immense pressure, but at least one prominent hedge fund has found what it thinks is a good opportunity in the wreckage. Marc Lasry, co-founder and chief executive of hedge fund Avenue Capital

  5. Credit Suisse cherry picks hedge fund ideas[more]

    From FT.com: Credit Suisse Asset Management plans to cherry pick profitable concepts from hedge funds with the launch in Europe of a “best ideas” strategy. The investment arm of the Swiss bank said the strategy will separate it from other funds blighted by “overcrowding problems”. It comes at a time