- in United States
- within Criminal Law, Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Environment topic(s)
The decision clarifies that the General Rolling Stock principle (whereby limitation periods cease to run against a company in liquidation) does not apply to companies in foreign insolvency processes.
The High Court has dismissed in full the claims brought by the liquidator of Transworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd ("TWPS") against First Curaçao International Bank N.V. ("FCIB") and its former president, Mr John Deuss. In so doing, the court has provided guidance on the requirements for establishing fraudulent trading and for advancing serious allegations of dishonesty: Transworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd v First Curaçao International Bank N.V. [2025] EWHC 2480 (Ch)
In a lengthy judgment, the High Court rejected allegations of dishonest assistance and fraudulent trading against FCIB and Mr Deuss and held that large parts of the case were in any event time-barred. The court further held that the claims would separately have been barred by the Curaçao law principle of forfeiture of rights due to earlier settlement agreements (and the negotiations that led to those agreements).
In addition to providing guidance on the requirements for alleging fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance, the judgment considers several issues, including the application of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (the "LA"), the application of the General Rolling Stock principle to foreign insolvency processes, the test for finding that an individual is a de facto or shadow director and issue estoppel.
The judgment draws a clear line between negligent compliance and dishonesty, a distinction with direct implications for banks and financial institutions.
For further detail, see this post on our Civil Fraud and Asset Tracing Notes blog.
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.
