Clik here to view.
...it’s like dog eats dog with Brandis in the thick of it..would be a hoot if this guy was funding Culleton!
Meet the man who Brandis and WA are jilting in Bell saga
November 26, 2016
http://www.michaelwest.com.au/meet-the-man-who-brandis-and-wa-are-ripping-off-in-bell-saga/
Brandis should go. No doubt about it. This Brandis/Gleeson saga is particularly enjoyable though when you have been privy to some of the background. Here is the lowdown on the Dutchman who the WA government and the feds are attempting to rip off via the Brandis manoeuvres. He is a highly colourful character and one of the four major creditors to Bell Group. This is Australia’s biggest litigation funding win by a long stretch. With $1.8 billion up for grabs and four major creditors there was always going to be a brawl. The Tax Office is in for almost $400 million so it is no surprise it sought advice from the Solicitor-General about how to stave off the cash grab by the WA government. Whatever you say about him though, Louis Reijtenbagh invested the money in the Bell Group action, backed it for years, and deserves his slice of the proceeds from the win.
Dutchman set for record profit from a legal action
5 November 2012
http://www.michaelwest.com.au/dutchman-set-for-record-profit-from-a-legal-action/
THREE years ago, Credit Suisse sued him over a $US750 million lending deal that the bank described as a ”brazen conspiracy … to cheat and deceive on an unmatched scale”. The case settled. Just two weeks later, JP Morgan accused him of smuggling a Rembrandt and some other valuable paintings out of the US, artwork that the bank alleged had been put up as collateral for a $US50 million loan. That case settled too, but not before sheriffs raided his apartment on the 64th floor of Trump Tower on New York’s Central Park and confiscated 29 works of art, including three Picassos, a Monet and three Modiglianis. There is one case, however, that hasn’t settled. It is a 15-year marathon that has racked up $300 million in legal fees. It is the biggest court case in Australia – the lawsuit between the liquidator and the banks in Bell Resources. And this time he is not a defendant.
Louis Reijtenbagh, the savvy Dutch speculator whose place of residence may be either New York, Monaco, Belgium or the island of Tortola in the northern Caribbean, is poised to make the largest profit from a legal action in Australian history. And his partners in the litigation funding deal with the liquidator of Bell Resources are none other than the state of Western Australia and the Commonwealth government. When the Supreme Court of WA dismissed the appeal by the Bell banking syndicate in August this year, it left the syndicate of 19 banks liable to pay the liquidator of Bell Resources $2.6 billion. The lawsuit had been funded by Louis Reijtenbagh and the federal and WA governments. So, these three parties are entitled to 60 per cent of the $2.6 billion pie, and Reijtenbagh’s share is possibly as high as $858 million.
It’s by no means a done deal yet, and the Dutchman is more likely to get about half that amount. The banks have applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal although they now accept liability for about $700 million. It is the compound interest they are fighting about. Enshrining the grand folly of litigation, the cost of this case has risen tenfold. The original claim hinged on the wrongful transfer of just $265 million in assets to the banks as Bell Resources teetered at the edge of insolvency in 1991. It was during the depths of the financial crisis in October 2008 that the banks had their thumping setback. Justice Neville Owen found they had been knowing and improper recipients of Bell Resources’ trust assets. He made orders for the syndicate to pay $1.58 billion to the liquidators. The banks appealed. The costs escalated. They lost on appeal three months ago.
The most remarkable thing about the mammoth lawsuit, though, is the involvement of Reijtenbagh himself, and the sheer magnitude of his potential gains. Bear in mind that the $200 million settlement won by litigation funder IMF Australia in the Centro court case against PricewaterouseCoopers had smashed all records earlier this year. Now, in what appears to be typical of the clever deal for which he is famed, the former family doctor and cardiologist from Holland seems not only assured of a large cut of the $700 million to $2.6 billion pot, it seems he is entitled to a ”free carry” from the Australian taxpayer too.
That is, sources close to the case told BusinessDay last week that the Netherlands Antilles vehicle that Louis Reijtenbagh controls and that is behind the funding deal, Bell Group NV, may have stopped footing its share of the legal bills a few years ago. This means that his partners – the Commonwealth (which is involved in the claim as a result of Bell’s debt to the Australian Taxation Office) and the Insurance Commission of WA (ICWA is a large bondholder) – have forked out the legal costs of the action in recent years but the Dutchman may still reap the greatest financial reward.
BusinessDay has been unable to ascertain what rights the Dutchman had to share in the final proceeds as the defaulting funder. What we have been able to piece together, though, is his possible entitlement. Under the agreement struck between the three funders and the liquidator, Tony Woodings, in February 1996, the three were to stump up the costs of the case and take 60 per cent of the return should they win. According to an application by the liquidators in the judge’s chambers in 2004, ”if a creditor fails to make its contribution [to funding the case] the obligations of the terminating creditor are to be borne by the other creditors”. Hence the free carry.
Sources have confirmed the amounts actually paid by each of the three are Insurance Commission of Western Australia ($159.4 million), Tax Office ($3.1 million) and BGNV (Louis Reijtenbagh’s entity, $22.5 million). The WA agency paid the lion’s share of the $185 million in costs although the shares in the funding obligation were split BGNV (110), ICWA (75) and ATO (15). Therefore, Louis Reijtenbagh’s BGNV should have paid 55 per cent of the bill to fund the case. It actually paid less than 13 per cent.
Despite the tortuous Bell case, and his spectacular wins and losses on overseas markets, the Dutchman had gained a taste for litigation funding Down Under. In about 2000, he was backing John Maconochie’s $50 billion claim against the National Australia Bank for breach of contract. That case was in court for 222 days and reaped Freehills – hitherto on the losing side in the Bell case – $30 million in fees, with total costs said to be far higher. The New South Wales Supreme Court judge dismissed the matter in 2002. He was also mooted to be the funder behind liquidator Paul Weston in the $244 million OneTel damages case served on James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch. More lately, he is funding the Great Southern litigation.
BELl Group payout poised to deliver a multibillion-dollar Dutch treat
18 November 2013
http://www.michaelwest.com.au/bell-group-payout-poised-to-deliver-a-multibillion-dollar-dutch-treat/
A very big pay day is soon to arrive for an unlikely trio: the Australian Taxation Office, the Insurance Commission of Western Australia and … wait for it … an enigmatic Dutchman who was once investigated for smuggling a Rembrandt out of the US. To be fair, it was his Rembrandt. As were the handful of Picassos, the Monet and the Modiglianis in his apartment in Trump Tower overlooking Central Park that were once seized by the New York sheriffs. Wall Street investment bank Credit Suisse once sued him, too, for $US750 million in a separate matter, claiming ”brazen conspiracy … to cheat and deceive on an unmatched scale”. The case was settled. Meet billionaire speculator Louis Reijtenbagh, a savvy Dutch speculator who bought some debts in the failed Bell Group in the 1990s, then threw his hat in with the ATO and Western Australia’s insurance commission in a litigation funding deal.
The Bell Group action turned into the longest and most expensive commercial contest in this country’s legal history. Fifteen years on, the original claim of $280 million is poised to deliver a settlement of up to $2.5 billion, of which the menage a trois of the ATO, the insurance commission and Louis Reijtenbagh will take the lion’s share. The Supreme Court of WA approved the Bell Group settlement on Thursday. It paves the way for a historic payout, and one that might have been avoided without 15 years of litigation and up to $500 million in legal costs, had the banks settled the case upfront. WA legal sources believe they could have buried it for $150 million. A remaining condition to be met before the payout is a vote by the bondholders.
The original claim hinged on the wrongful transfer of just $265 million in assets to a syndicate of 19 banks as Robert Holmes a Court’s Bell Group danced on the precipice of insolvency in 1991. It was during the height of the financial crisis in October 2008 that the banks had their big setback. Justice Neville Owen found they had been knowing and improper recipients of Bell Resources’ trust assets. He made orders for the syndicate to pay $1.58 billion to the liquidators. The banks appealed. The costs escalated. They subsequently lost on appeal. The split is yet to be revealed but 64 per cent of the monster payout is to be shared by the three plaintiffs. They assumed all the risk, they funded the tortuous 15-year lawsuit, so there can be little quibbling. Still, the sheer magnitude of the settlement is sure to have the critics of litigation funding rattling their sabres.
Ironically, from the perspective of the banks, it may have been worthwhile. Though they could have squared the action away at one-tenth of the cost in the early ’90s, the marathon Bell Group defence sends the message nonetheless: Don’t fight us; we are prepared to splash hundreds of millions of dollars in silk and solicitors. And the taxpayers pay twice: one, they fund the court system; and, two, companies get a tax deduction for litigation as a legitimate expense of doing business. The other development of note in litigation-funding circles of late has been the advent of Mark Elliott. Elliott, a former partner of Minter Ellison, has ruffled the odd few feathers with two quick-fire class actions: against Leighton Holdings and Treasury Wine Estates for the bribery allegations and the wine inventory imbroglio in the US. Elliott, who is already running the Banksia class action, looks to have a good case in Leighton, while the Treasury writ is yet to be filed. But he is taking a massive risk fighting these two without oodles of funding.
Searches show his company, Melbourne City Investments is only a year old. Elliott is sole director, secretary and shareholder, and his company is the lead applicant in both claims. Besides the inevitable security for costs orders, he can expect to field claims that his company has not suffered a loss but rather bought shares to engage in class-action opportunities. The class actions automatically include all investors, so the question is, are they all bound by the fate of Mark Elliott’s actions and his ability to fund the claims?