BNP Paribas v Ths Global Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, January 15, 2009, [2009] EWHC 37 (Ch)

Reporting Judge: [2009] EWHC 37 (Ch)

President: BNP Paribas v Ths Global Ltd & Ors

Linked as:

Extract

BNP Paribas v Ths Global Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, January 15, 2009, [2009] EWHC 37 (Ch)

Page 20

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 37 (Ch)

Case No: HC08CO1676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 15 January 2009

Before :

Richard Sheldon QC

(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Philip Marshall QC (instructed by Ashurst LLP) for the Claimant

Stephen Rubin QC (instructed by SJ Berwin LLP) for the Defendants----------

Hearing dates: 12 December 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

Richard Sheldon QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court):

Introduction

1. This is the hearing of the Claimant's ("BNPP") Pt 8 claim seeking disclosure of documents and information pursuant to the jurisdiction established by Norwich Pharmacal v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.

2. BNPP seeks disclosure in relation to various restructuring transactions that have been carried out in respect of TH Global Ltd, the First Defendant ("THG"), which BNPP suggests have had the apparent effect of removing assets of substantial value from THG to the significant detriment of BNPP as one of its preferential shareholders. More specifically BNPP contends that, as a result of what it says appears to have been a carefully prepared plan, receivables amounting to some £350.8m owed to THG by companies in the Kvaerner ASA Group which are listed on the Oslo stock exchange and are creditworthy have been transferred away in 2005 and replaced by receivables totalling £910.5m owed by the Second Defendant ("Spinaker"), a company formed on 20 December 2004 with a share capital of £1. BNPP contends that the Defendants appear to have been mixed up in a wrongful "asset stripping" scheme to the substantial detriment of THG stakeholders such as BNPP. The Defendants deny all the allegations of wrongdoing and say that BNPP have misunderstood the position.

Background...

See the full content of this document