Tactus Holdings Limited v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors
[2024] EWHC 399 (Comm)
Tariq Hamoodi v Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd
4 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1314 (Comm)
High Court
A man sued a fund manager, claiming they sold him shares knowing the company's value was about to drop due to undisclosed bad news about a lawsuit. The judge threw out some of his claims because they weren't detailed enough, but let the main claims go to trial because there's enough evidence to suggest a problem, even if it needs more investigation.
Key Facts
- •Tariq Hamoodi (Claimant) alleges losses from trading Nanoco Group PLC (Third Party) shares due to Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd's (Defendant) wrongdoing.
- •Defendant sought summary judgment or strike-out; Claimant sought to amend Particulars of Claim.
- •Claimant alleges Defendant possessed inside information regarding Nanoco's Samsung litigation settlement, selling shares to him without disclosure.
- •Claimant's case rests on implied misrepresentation, fraud, breach of duty of care, and unlawful means conspiracy.
- •Defendant's employee, Mr. Turcan, was a Nanoco director, potentially giving access to inside information.
- •Key event: July 2022 share sale to Claimant and a later January 2023 conversation revealing potential inside information.
- •Amendments sought to add details about Mr. Turcan's conduct and litigation prospects, and clarify the implied representation.
Legal Principles
Power to strike out a statement of case (CPR Part 3.4(2))
CPR Part 3
Summary judgment principles (CPR 24.3; Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd; AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin Ltd)
CPR 24.3, Easyair, AC Ward
Amendment of statement of case (CPR Part 17; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd)
CPR Part 17, Kawasaki
Particularity in pleading fraud (Portland Stone Firms v Barclays Bank; Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov)
Portland Stone, Fiona Trust
Market Abuse Regulation (Regulation 596/2014) – inside information, insider dealing, legitimate behaviour
Regulation 596/2014
Insider dealing under Criminal Justice Act 1993 (Section 53)
Criminal Justice Act 1993, s.53
Implied representations (Marme Inversiones 2007 v NatWest Markets plc)
Marme Inversiones
Disclosure of sources in witness statements (PD 32)
PD 32
Outcomes
Claims for unlawful means conspiracy and negligence struck out.
Insufficiently particularized; failure to plead facts supporting the conspiracy; inadequate pleading of duty of care.
Claims under Misrepresentation Act 1967 and in fraud allowed to proceed.
Implied representation issue is a question of fact for trial; sufficient evidence to support the fraud claim at this stage, despite potential weaknesses.
Summary judgment application refused.
Matters require full exploration at trial; Claimant's case, while containing potential weaknesses, is not so lacking in merit to warrant summary judgment.
Permission to amend Particulars of Claim granted (for surviving claims).
Early stage of litigation; amendments unlikely to be unduly disruptive.
Similar Cases
Dolphin Capital Partners Limited v DCI Advisors Limited
[2024] EWHC 678 (Comm)
Akkurate Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v John Christopher Richmond & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2392 (Ch)
Martin Hague & Anor v David Hague & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1469 (Ch)
Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust & Ors v Barclays Plc
[2024] EWHC 2710 (Ch)