Cayman Islands: Reflecting On Reflective Loss

Last Updated: 29 July 2019
Article by Nigel K. Meeson Q.C.

Primeo Fund (In Official Liquidation) and Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Limited, HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) SA (Cayman Islands Court of Appeal 13 June 2019)

The common law principle of reflective loss has been judicially described as a "perplexing and developing area". The most recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the Cayman Islands has highlighted the importance of paying close attention to the scope and application of the principle.

On 13 June 2019 the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal gave judgment in Primeo Fund (In Official Liquidation) and Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Limited, HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) SA in which it held that recovery by Primeo of losses caused by the administrators and custodian of the feeder funds, through which they were invested in Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS"), were barred by the principle of reflective loss, even though wrongdoing had been established.

Originally Primeo had invested directly in BLMIS, but later, in 2003, it had changed to investing indirectly through two feeder funds, Herald Fund SPC ("Herald") and Alpha Prime Fund Ltd. ("Alpha"). At first instance, the Judge had held that it was irrelevant that when the cause of action arose Primeo was not a shareholder in Herald or Alpha, and that, provided there was a real prospect of success of a claim by Herald or Alpha succeeding, Primeo's claim would be barred by the principle of reflective loss. This decision was upheld on appeal.

The reflective loss principle applies where a shareholder1,2 and a company both have a claim against a defendant arising out of the same facts. Unless all or part of the shareholder's loss is separate and distinct from the loss suffered by the company it will not be recoverable in an action brought by the shareholder against the defendant.

The classic formulation of this principle is that of Lord Bingham in Johnson -v- Gore Wood3

"Where a company suffers loss caused by a breach of duty owed to it, only the company may sue in respect of that loss. No action lies at the suit of a shareholder suing in that capacity and no other to make good a diminution in the value of the shareholder's shareholding where that merely reflects the loss suffered by the company. A claim will not lie by a shareholder to make good a loss which would be made good if the company's assets were replenished through action against the party responsible for the loss, even if the company, acting through its constitutional organs, has declined or failed to make good that loss."

He went on to identify two exceptions:

"Where a company suffers loss but has no cause of action to sue to recover that loss, the shareholder in the company may sue in respect of it (if the shareholder has a cause of action to do so), even though the loss is a diminution in the value of the shareholding."

and

"Where a company suffers loss caused by a breach of duty to it, and a shareholder suffers a loss separate and distinct from that suffered by the company caused by breach of a duty independently owed to the shareholder, each may sue to recover the loss caused to it by breach of the duty owed to it but neither may recover loss caused to the other by breach of the duty owed to that other."

In Garcia -v- Marex Financial Ltd4 Flaux LJ identified5 four policy justifications for the principle which were accepted by the Court of Appeal in Primeo:

  1. the need to avoid double recovery by the claimant and the company from the defendant;
  2. causation, in the sense that if the company chooses not to claim against the wrongdoer or settles for less than it ought to have done, the loss is caused by the decision of the company and not by the defendant's wrongdoing;
  3. the public policy of avoiding conflicts of interest in the sense that if the claimant had a separate right to claim it would discourage the wrongdoer from settling with the company;
  4. the need to preserve company autonomy and avoid prejudice to minority shareholders and other creditors.

Although Flaux LJ referred first in his list to double recovery, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has previously pointed out that this is not the primary consideration and the principle may apply even where there is in fact no risk of double recovery.

In Xie Zhikun & ors -v- Xio GP Limited & anr.6 Rix JA observed that the primary consideration could be seen to be the fourth one – the need to preserve company autonomy and avoid prejudice to minority shareholders and other creditors. In Primeo this analysis was approved by a differently constituted Court of Appeal and, as between these two linked reasons, it was said that "if there is an "underlying reason", it is the need to avoid prejudice to minority shareholders and other creditors", rather than merely to preserve company autonomy.

These were the legal principles which the Court of Appeal applied to reject the two arguments of Primeo as to why the principle did not apply to the losses it claimed.

The first argument, referred to as the "timing" question, was that for the reflective loss principle to apply it was necessary that the plaintiff be a shareholder at the time the cause of action accrued. Thus the principle only applies if the plaintiff is in substance claiming in its capacity as a shareholder for the diminution of the value of its shares in the company (the "capacity point") and by definition it cannot be claiming in that capacity for losses incurred before it became a shareholder (the "pure timing point"). The nature of a loss sustained which is separate and independent cannot change and become reflective of a company's loss just because the plaintiff later becomes a shareholder (the "no-change" point).

The Court of Appeal rejected the capacity point. It held that the references in Johnson -v- Gore Wood to a shareholder "suing in that capacity" and "as such" and to "a diminution in the value of the shareholder's shareholding" was not a condition required for the principle to be engaged, but rather a description of the typical scenario in which the principle applies.

As for the pure timing point, the Court of Appeal also rejected that argument. The authorities focus on "the loss claimed" and whether such loss would have been made good if the company had enforced its rights. This had to be tested at the time the claim was made, and not at the time the cause of action arose. As stated by Neuberger LJ in Gardner -v- Parker7 "the rule against reflective loss is not concerned with barring causes of action as such, but with barring recovery of certain types of loss".

Primeo's argument based upon Johnson v Gore Wood was inconsistent with the judgment of Lewison LJ in Garcia8:

"...the decision of the House of Lords in Johnson establishes that a claim brought by a shareholder, even if not in his capacity as such, is barred by the rule against reflective loss if the loss that he himself has suffered would have been made good by restoration of the company's assets ...."

In principle the no change point is self-evidently correct and the Court of Appeal agreed with it. However, the real issue is whether the plaintiff would be made whole if the company had enforced its right, and that is to be tested at the time the claim is made. Furthermore, on the facts, the nature of the transaction by which Primeo transferred its assets from its own account to a Herald account with BLIMIS in exchange for shares in Herald was an additional reason why any loss ceased to be separate and distinct.

Finally, if Primeo were allowed to recover then there would be a risk of it "scooping the pool" ahead of the companies' claims and thereby prejudicing other shareholders and creditors and because of the impact of the proceedings on the ability of the defendants to settle the companies' claims.

The Court of Appeal having rejected the timing question turned to consider Primeo's second argument, referred to as the "merits test" question, which was that the principle was not in fact engaged because on a balance of probabilities the companies claims would not succeed. The Judge had applied a lower test of whether the company's claim had a realistic prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal considered that this question was not firmly settled by authority, but had to be decided according to policy. It was held that policy favoured the lower threshold of "realistic" claim, and not the higher threshold of "likely to succeed".

The main policy consideration identified was the fact that claims with a reasonable prospect of success, particularly in complex commercial litigation, are seen to have a value which can be realised and which the company should be entitled to realise. Setting the threshold higher would make it difficult for the company to settled such claims and would increase the risk of an individual shareholder "scooping the pool" at the expense of other shareholders or creditors.

The Court of Appeal also pointed out two significant practical difficulties with a higher threshold. First the merits of a company's claim would have to be determined in proceedings to which the company was not a party. Secondly, the court may have little assistance from the parties because a shareholder will have no incentive to argue that the company's claim will succeed because that would bar its own claim. The defendant will not do so because it would be admitting liability in another claim.

It is important to note the emphasis placed by the Court of Appeal on the underlying policy justification for the reflective loss principle as being to avoid the risk of the claim by the individual shareholder prejudicing other shareholders and creditors of the company by scooping the pool. It follows that if the loss claimed by the shareholder would have been made good by a successful claim by the company then the individual shareholder's claim will be barred by the reflective loss principle. Whether that is so is to be assessed at the time the claim is made.

A failure by a plaintiff to take into account the reflective loss principle may result in a very expensive pyrrhic victory if wrongdoing is established after a lengthy trial on the merits, but the losses caused thereby are held not recoverable in law.

Footnotes

1. Per Neuberger J (as he then was) in Humberclyde Finance Group Ltd v Hicks (unrep. 14.11.01) approved by Sir Bernard Rix JA in Xie Zhikun & ors v Xio GP Limited & anr. (CICA unrep. 14.11.18)

2. The principle also applies to creditors see Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1468 (awaiting Judgment on the appeal to Supreme Court which was heard on 8 May 2019)

3. [2002] 2 AC 1 (HL) at 35F

4. See fn 2 above

5. at [32]

6. See fn 1 above

7. [2004] EWCA Civ. 781 at [49]

8. At [70]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions