![]() The declined to respond and the net asset value (NAV) of its redemption was therefore fixed and became effective as of in the amount of US$ 8,820,838.03'"ĥ. On, offered the the chance to 'float' its redemption, which would have allowed interest to continue to accrue on the balance of the redeemed amount until payment, which would be made in due course based on the effective date of redemption. 'The served notice of redemption on 22nd January 2008 in relation to its shares in Class K for a redemption. Perry Gillies, President of New Stream Capital LLC deposes as follows By his affidavit sworn in at paragraph 75 Mr. Tensor I that " Tensor became an actual (redemption) creditor on in respect of its redemption request in the agreed amount." However, it is also averred that: This is the reliance pleaded in paragraph 13 on the finding in One is a matter of record and has no bearing on the interest controversy. The Statement of Claim places reliance on two matters in support of the averment in paragraph 14 that " on or before 31st May 2008 the Shares were redeemed and the Defendant was immediately liable to pay the Redemption Price to the First or Second Plaintiff calculated on the Valuation date in the sum of US$ 8,820,838.03". It is undisputed that from around July 1, 2007, the Tensor beneficially owned segregated account Class K shares in the Defendant Fund as a result of investing US$8 million. Although Tensor's claim is not disputed on its merits, it must be understood in order to evaluate the interest issue. Rather the Defendant challenged the Plaintiffs' right to bring the present proceedings on technical grounds and, alternatively, their right to claim interest on any judgment this Court might enter in Tensor's favour.Ĥ. At the hearing it became clear that no dispute existed in relation to Tensor's claim for payment as such. The parties' respective Summonses came on for hearing together. By Summons dated March 16, 2010, the Defendant applied to strike out Tensor's action on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious and/or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b),(d) of the Rules. It is also averred that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to interest in any event.ģ. It is averred that Tensor is estopped from asserting the present claim because it ought to have brought the claim before, no later than when it brought its application to appoint a receiver under section 19 of the Segregated Accounts Companies Act 2000, which was refused in Tensor Endowment Limited et al v New Stream Capital Fund Ltd.BDLR Bda LR 74 (" Tensor I"). It is admitted that the redemption sum payable to Tensor is the amount claimed, but averred that this amount is only payable under the Bye-laws " as soon as practicable". The Defendant filed its Defence on March 11, 2010. This claim was further elaborated upon in the Statement of Claim filed on Februtogether with the Writ.Ģ. According to the Prayer, the Plaintiffs claimed " payment of the price due upon the redemption of redeemable shares in a segregated account maintained by the Defendant and known as Class K", being " a liquidated sum of $8,820,838.03". The Plaintiffs ("Tensor") applied by Summons dated Februfor Summary Judgment in respect of their claim set out in a Specially Indorsed Writ issued on February 5, 2010.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |