First magnus liquidating trust
(2) D1 was liable for breach of his fiduciary duties to W as a director and in the tort of deceit (para.147).
(3) The test for D2's liability was whether she had done what a reasonable director of a hedge fund management company in her position, with her experience, actual knowledge and intelligence should have done, and whether she acquired a sufficient knowledge of W's business to discharge her duties. (4) D9 was in breach of his duties to W as director by failing to acquire sufficient knowledge and understanding of its business and failing to satisfy himself as to the details and propriety of the swaps.
In all the circumstances, the swaps were never intended to be enforceable instruments but were simply used to manipulate figures to give the impression to investors that M was successful.
(1) On the evidence, the swaps were consistently wrongly valued and there were serious flaws in the way the paperwork for the swaps was dealt with.He was also liable in negligence for failing to act with reasonable care, skill and diligence and for negligently making false representations to investors (paras 182-183, 189).(5) D10 had been over-promoted and had accepted everything that D1 had told him as to trade customs, compensation, authorisation and the like.There were also outstanding claims against the third to the seventh defendants (D3), who were the recipients of transfers made by D1.The claim against the eighth defendant, another recipient of funds, was settled.
Search for first magnus liquidating trust:
Following difficult market conditions, M experienced a high volume of redemption requests which it was unable to meet.