ENGLISH COURT OF APPEALS RESOLVES DISPUTE ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES IN LLOYD’S BROKER
Claimant, Square Mile Partnership (“Square Mile”), entered into an agreement with Robert Bruce Fitzmaurice Group (“RBF Group”) for the purchase of the shares of Robert Bruce Fitzmaurice (“RBF”), RBF Group’s direct subsidiary, a Lloyd’s broker. The agreement provided for the transfer of RBF’s “accumulated net worth” to Square Mile. The day before completion of the agreement, the transfer took place in favor of Fitzmaurice McCall (“Fitzmaurice”), RBF’s ultimate holding company. The amount of the payment was calculated on the basis of RBF’s distributable dividends.
After completion of the agreement, a dispute arose between Square Mile and Fitzmaurice concerning the exact meaning of the expression “accumulated net worth.” According to Square Mile, it referred only to RBF’s distributable profits, while according to Fitzmaurice it meant the whole of RBF’s net assets.
The court concluded that the expression “accumulated net worth” was intended to cover all the nets assets of RBF. As to Square Mile’s argument that the amount actually transferred from RBF Group to Fitzmaurice a day before completion of the agreement, the court explained that to the extent to which this argument relied on evidence of precontractual negotiations it could not be admitted. While English law does offer some exceptions to the general rule that precontractual negotiations are inadmissible as evidence for the interpretation of a written agreement, the Court concluded that the exceptions were not warranted in this case. The Square Mile Partnership Ltd v. Fitzmaurice McCall Ltd, [2006] EWCA Civ. 1689 (Dec. 18, 2006).
