Byers & ors v The Saudi National Bank [2022] WTLR 437

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2022 #187

This action related to a transfer in September 2009 of shares in five Saudi Arabian banks, then collectively worth about US$318m, by Mr Maan Al-Sanea (who at that time held those shares) to Samba Financial Group (Samba). The claimants were the liquidators of Saad Investments Company Ltd (SICL). They alleged that Mr Al-Sanea had at the time of the transfer held those shares on trust for SICL. The claimants brought a number of different actions against Samba in respect of the transfer of the shares, formulating the case on various legal bases in the various different actions. The iteration...

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132

Michael Prest (husband) and Yasmin Prest (wife) were married for 15 years and had four children before the wife petitioned for divorce in March 2008. During the marriage the matrimonial home was in England, though for most of the time the husband was found to be resident in Monaco and there was also a second home in Nevis. Petrodel Resources Ltd (PRL), which was incorporated in the Isle of Man, was the legal owner of the matrimonial home and five other residential properties in the United Kingdom. PRL was part of a group of companies, one of which was the legal owner of two more resident...

Corporate Assets: Divisional divide

James Copson analyses the impact of Petrodel v Prest and the repercussions for family lawyers Rimer LJ made it clear that the husband helping himself to the companies’ assets did not alter the status of the companies as separate entities from the owner of their shares. The Court of Appeal decision in Petrodel v Prest …
This post is only available to members.

Commercial: To pierce or not to pierce? The Court of Appeal protects the corporate veil

Clare Arthurs assesses a recent challenge to corporate protection VTB’s original case was pleaded in deceit and unlawful means conspiracy. The judge overturned the permission VTB had obtained (ex parte) to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. The expression ‘Piercing the corporate veil’ is a neat turn of phrase, but what does it actually mean? …
This post is only available to members.