Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Simon Mills, barrister at Five Paper, and Harold Brako, partner at Shoosmiths LLP, discuss Capital For Enterprise Fund v Bibby Financial Services and argue that the case serves as a reminder about the dangers of pleading a claim in conspiracy without first rigorously analysing the available evidence.
Capital For Enterprise Fund A LP and another v Bibby Financial Services Ltd  EWHC 2593 (Ch),  All ER (D) 117 (Nov)
The Chancery Division considered whether there had been an unlawful means conspiracy in circumstances where the director of an insolvent company had conspired to transfer the assets of that company to a company that he controlled. The court held that, in the circumstances, the claimants had failed to establish the loss they had alleged in the action they had brought for damages. Accordingly, the claim failed.
A software company (Qire) became insolvent, and a director and shareholder (Mr Cooper) was advised by an insolvency practitioner who suggested that Qire should enter into a pre-pack administration to enable its assets to be sold to a newco (Qivox), a company owned by Mr Cooper (30%), and one of Qire’s principal creditors, Voxeo (70%). It was inevitable there would be a shortfall for the creditors, including the claimants. Bibby agreed to provide finance to Qire and Qivox by purchasing their debts, but Mr Cooper did not inform the board of Qire about the planned restructure. Bibby then purchased the debts of Qire and it entered administration. Qivox continued the business of Qire using its software, but Capital For Enterprise Fund (CFE) and Maven Capital Partners (Maven) blocked the sale of Qire’s assets to Qivox. The claimants lost their £2m investment in Qire.
The claimants, as assignees, subsequently compromised any claims they had against Mr Cooper, Qivox and Voxeo and transferred Qire’s software and
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234