Intercontinental Bank v Akingbola & Ors

MR SIMON BROWNE-WILKINSON QC AND MR ADAM ZELLICK (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner) for the Claimant MS ELIZABETH JONES QC AND MR JOHN MACHELL (instructed by Peters & Peters) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 3 & 4 March 2011 ____________________

i) The "first Fuglers payment". This was a payment made out of the Bank to Fuglers, a firm of London solicitors, at the instance of the Defendant, in the sum of �8,540,134.58 on 11 March 2009 to purchase property in London in the names of the Second to Fourth Defendants, which, it is common ground, are companies owned by the Lifeboat Settlement, a Cayman Islands Trust, established by the First Defendant for himself and his family as beneficiaries.

ii) The "Tropics Payments". This relates to a number of payments paid at the instance of the Defendant and/or with his knowledge by the Bank, totalling in all some �68m or 18.6bn naira (N18.6bn), to, or for the benefit of, four inter-related companies (Tropics Security Ltd, Tropics Finance and Investment Ltd, Tropics Properties Ltd and Bankinson Nigeria Ltd, collectively "the Tropics companies"), of which the Defendant was a director and shareholder, between 11 May and 26 June 2009.

iii) The "second Fuglers payment". This was a further payment out at the instance of the Defendant to Fuglers in the sum of �1.3m on 13 July 2009, again to purchase property in London, in the name of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants, which are admittedly companies owned by the Octopus Trust, an Isle of Man trust established by the Defendant for himself and his family as beneficiaries.

ii) As for Option C, this would depend upon Mr Browne-Wilkinson's establishing that there is no doubt that, if this was the explanation of the payment, it was plainly unlawful, as being financial assistance in respect of the Claimant's own shares in breach of s159 of CAMA. If the Part 24 application succeeded on this basis, then there would need to be an enquiry as to the equitable compensation payable by the Defendant in respect of his breach of duty, because it might be that there would fall to be set off, against the �68m, some value to the Claimant.