From boardroom to courtroom: How far can without notice relief go?

In a recent landmark decision, Re Valorem Holdings Ltd [2023], the High Court demonstrated the extraordinary lengths it is prepared to go to protect the interests of shareholders and preserve the integrity of corporate governance. This case is an example of how courts can employ innovative and far-reaching interim relief mechanisms in response to serious allegations of misconduct.

Background

The case revolved around a luxury perfume group with operations spanning the globe. A breakdown in trust between its two principal shareholders – each holding a 41.35% stake in the holding company, Valorem Holdings Ltd (VHL) – brought the business to the brink of crisis.

The Petitioner alleged that the CEO and fellow shareholder (the First Respondent) had engaged in serious misconduct, including:

• Trading with Russia in violation of UK sanctions.
• Selling products containing a banned substance with altered labelling.
• Misuse of COVID-19 government support schemes.

The Petitioner filed an unfair prejudice petition under sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006, seeking urgent interim relief to protect the company and its reputation.

Groundbreaking Relief

The court’s orders in this case are among the most far-reaching examples of interim relief granted on a without notice basis. They included:

1. Director removal: The First Respondent was removed as a director and replaced with the Petitioner and two independent nominees.
2. Imaging and disclosure orders: To secure and preserve evidence of misconduct.
3. Passport orders: Preventing the Respondent from leaving the jurisdiction to evade justice.

These measures were designed to stabilise the company and prevent the destruction or concealment of critical evidence.

Legal Principles at Play

The court applied the established principles for interim relief from American Cyanamid v Ethicon, but with a heightened evidential threshold due to the exceptional nature of the orders sought. Key considerations included:

• Prima facie case: The court found compelling evidence of deliberate breaches of sanctions, justifying the relief.
• Balance of convenience: The risk of irreparable harm to the company outweighed any potential prejudice to the Respondent.

Full and frank disclosure: The Petitioner’s duty to present all relevant facts, including those unfavourable to their case, was rigorously applied

The Return Date and Broader Implications

At the return date, held months later, the interim orders were upheld. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the new management structure, citing the success of the company under its revised leadership.

This case represents a high-water mark for the type of relief available to shareholders in cases of extreme misconduct. It also highlights the strategic complexities of applying for without notice relief, including the need for meticulous preparation and the potential reputational risks involved.

Lessons for Practitioners

The decision in Re Valorem Holdings Ltd [2023] offers several practical takeaways:

1. A robust evidential foundation is essential when seeking such exceptional remedies.
2. Courts will carefully weigh the impact of relief on all parties and the business itself.
3. Early action, particularly in cases involving misconduct, can be decisive in protecting corporate interests.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the courts’ readiness to intervene decisively in the face of serious allegations, provided the circumstances warrant it. For businesses and practitioners, it reinforces the importance of acting swiftly and strategically to address potential risks while ensuring compliance with procedural and evidential requirements.