LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In a decisive ruling, the High Court of England and Wales (the “High Court”) has unequivocally found in favour of and dismissed all claims against the El Husseiny family (the “Family”) and Virtue Trustees (Kendris) their institutional Swiss wealth adviser, bringing an end to a protracted legal battle in the UK initiated by the Sharjah Government-owned Invest Bank (the “Bank”), with the backing of litigation funder Burford Capital.

The litigation, spanning four years and nine jurisdictions, arose from allegations that Lebanese businessman Ahmad El Husseini acted as a guarantor for credit facilities granted to two UAE companies: Commodore Contracting Company and Al Tadamun Glass and Aluminium Company in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Ahmad always maintained that these guarantees were never given and that the documents which claim to evidence the guarantees are forgeries. A default judgment was subsequently entered against Ahmad in England.

The Bank later initiated a claim against Ahmad and his family (the “Defendants”) pursuant to s. 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to reverse various transfers of assets from Ahmad or companies owned by him to his family members or their companies, in what the Bank described as a "worldwide asset dissipation scheme to defeat his creditors." This allegation was first advanced by the Bank at an ex parte hearing in July 2021, of which the Defendants were unaware and at which they were unrepresented. It was subsequently contested by the Defendants, who maintained that the alleged asset transfers either occurred for legitimate reasons such as tax planning (to mitigate the impact of a publicised change to the UK inheritance tax regime which came into force on 4 April 2017), or in some cases did not take place at all.

The High Court's ruling confirms the family’s long-held position that these allegations were entirely unfounded, vindicating them after years of determined litigation by the Bank and its legal team.

At paragraph 483 of a 120-page judgment handed down today, High Court Judge The Honourable Mr Justice Calver stated “I find that the Bank has failed to prove any of its claims against the Defendants and its claims are accordingly dismissed against each of them.”

“We are grateful for the High Court’s decision today, which has ruled unequivocally in our favour,” the El Husseiny family stated. “Invest Bank has pursued its claim against our family for four years relentlessly and across multiple jurisdictions. We have always maintained that this claim was totally unfounded and today our position has finally been vindicated.

"While today’s ruling brings a sense of comfort, this prolonged and intense litigation has inflicted significant financial, reputational, and emotional damage on us as a family. Through no wrongdoing on our part, we have been forced to defend these meritless claims both in the UK and abroad, spending vast sums of money as the Bank sought to change their case at least eight times, pursuing one angle and then another in their claim against our family.”

The cost of the sprawling multi-jurisdictional litigation has vastly exceeded the alleged £19 million debt. Since the litigation began, the Bank filed over 100 applications and subpoenas across nine jurisdictions, seeking to financially cripple the family and force a settlement.

Additionally, subpoenas were unlawfully obtained in New York, South Dakota and California in an attempt to gain financial records, Gmail and WhatsApp information, and private investigators were hired to dig into the lives of the defendants, their partners, and even their young children. The El Husseiny family successfully challenged the Bank’s subpoenas, with a US judge ruling against Invest Bank and their partners that they formed the “vanguard of an illegal worldwide fishing expedition.”

In another example of the Bank’s aggressive pursuit of the claim, in June 2023, the Bank sought an order preventing Joan (Ahmad’s former wife, an elderly Scottish lady) from using her own funds for living and legal expenses without their consent or court approval. The application was dismissed with costs paid to Joan; and The Honourable Mrs Justice Dias observed that the order sought by the Bank would be “wholly inappropriate”, that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant it and that “it could not conceivably be right, even in principle, to make such an order.”

At the same time, Ahmad’s global assets remained frozen due to the Bank issuing similar proceedings in Canada, leaving him unable to pay his UK legal team and forcing him to withdraw from the UK proceedings. Despite multiple written requests via the Bank’s lawyers seeking permission to sell a property to cover his legal fees, no resolution was provided which culminated in the ailing Ahmad being unable to continue in the UK proceedings and resulted in a default judgement against him. In this case, the Bank successfully crippled Ahmad’s finances and ability to continue in the proceedings.

Despite the Bank amending its legal claims at least seven times in the UK proceedings and attempting to adjourn the trial 4 weeks before it started, the court ultimately found no merit in its allegations.

The El Husseiny family concluded, “This has been an ordeal for our family and, while we are all happy that today it is over, we feel strongly that it should never been allowed in the first place. This case serves as a troubling example of how our justice system can be exploited to bring speculative claims with little regard for the individuals involved. The UK taxpayer-funded courts should not serve as a playground for litigation of this nature.

“Today’s ruling is not only a personal victory for our family but also a powerful reminder that justice can prevail, albeit at significant personal and financial cost. We are currently considering all available options for costs and compensation in light of the significant damage we have endured.”

The second and sixth defendants were represented by Debenhams Ottaway.

Notes to Editors

Background on the case:

• Invest Bank, a public shareholding company established in the United Arab Emirates, asserts that it has judgment debts against Ahmad El-Husseini from proceedings brought in Abu Dhabi. Ahmad was never served in those proceedings. Although the Bank had his full contact information and address, he was served using false contact information.
• The claims in those proceedings were brought on the basis of personal guarantees allegedly given by Ahmad in connection with two credit facilities. The judgment debts are said to amount to c.AED 96 million (c.£19 million).
• The Bank alleged that, before those judgments were obtained, Ahmad El-Husseini transferred, or caused his companies to transfer, a number of valuable assets, in the form of shares, real estate and monies, to his family members and/or companies said to be under their control and/or a trust of which they were beneficiaries, to put them beyond the reach of his creditors.
• The Bank therefore sought declarations that Ahmad El-Husseini holds the beneficial interest in the property assets, and relief under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards all of the assets.
• This allegation was contested by the Family, which stated that the alleged asset transfers either did not take place at all or that they occurred for legitimate reasons such as tax planning (for example, it is said, to mitigate the impact of a publicised change to the UK inheritance tax regime which came into force on 4 April 2017).
• In todays judgement para [483], High Court Judge Mr Justice Calver stated “I find that the Bank has failed to prove any of its claims against the Defendants and its claims are accordingly dismissed against each of them.”
• Sheikh Tahnoon bin Saeed bin Shakboot Al-Nahyan (“Sheikh Tahnoon”), a former business partner of Ahmad, seized control of the UAE companies from Ahmad while he was in a sale process for Commodore, the main company, while Invest Bank subsequently pursued a default judgment against him for the purported unpaid debt.
• Invest Bank did not seek to reclaim the alleged debt from the Commodore or Tadamun liquidations in the UAE, instead pursued Ahmad, his extended family and Kendris in nine jurisdictions at disproportionately vast cost compared to simply applying to the UAE liquidation (which Invest Bank finally did, during the UK trial itself, 5 years later).
• Please note that the Sheikh Tahnoon bin Saeed bin Shakboot Al-Nahyan (“Sheikh Tahnoon”) that we refer to, should not be confused with Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan.