January 14 2016
START DATE
END DATE
March 10 2016
THE MAJURO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. VASILE TIMIS et al
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
COMMERCIAL COURT
IAN RC KAWALEY CJ
Mr Delroy Duncan and Ms Lauren Sadler-Best
Mr. Alex Potts Mr Peter Sanderson
FACTS OF THE CASE:
P sought equitable compensation or damages of $50.5 million for alleged wrongdoings by D1 and others as a shareholder of D7 and D8 claiming on their behalf. The case was marked by issues of jurisdiction standing to sue and non-disclosure at the ex parte hearing. P was formed for the specific purpose of commencing the action leading to questions about evading costs consequences. The court found P lacked standing and the case unmeritorious dismissing claims against D1 and awarding indemnity costs to D1 due to P's abusive litigation behavior. P and a third-party funder were ordered to disclose funding sources.
SUMMARY:
Defendant
OUTCOMES:
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
THE MAJURO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. VASILE TIMIS et al
P sought equitable compensation or damages of $50.5 million for alleged wrongdoings by D1 and others as a shareholder of D7 and D8 claiming on their behalf. The case was marked by issues of jurisdiction standing to sue and non-disclosure at the ex parte hearing. P was formed for the specific purpose of commencing the action leading to questions about evading costs consequences. The court found P lacked standing and the case unmeritorious dismissing claims against D1 and awarding indemnity costs to D1 due to P's abusive litigation behavior. P and a third-party funder were ordered to disclose funding sources.