Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Force India F1 team set for High Court legal dispute with administrator

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 825
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Formula One, the world’s premier motorsport championship looks likely to be plunged into a legal battle soon after a prospective buyer of the Force India F1 team considers suing administrators over “serious concerns about the conduct of the bid process.”

Russian company Uralkali, made a serious bid to buy the team after Force India fell into administration in this summer. The team had been owned by charismatic Indian entrepreneur Vijay Mallya, Dutch businessman Michiel Mol and Indian conglomerate Sahara. Mallya, who is currently the subject of extradition proceedings by the Indian Government to force his return to the UK from India, was worth an estimated $1.5 billion at his peak in 2010, but his fortunes have declined significantly since then. The Uralkali bid ultimately failed, with the administartors agreeing a sale of the mid-table team to a consortium led by Lawrence Stroll, father of Williams F1 driver Lance.

Following the adminsitrators decision, Uralkali has indicated that it has launched legal action in London's High Court. In a statement given to Autosport magazine, Uralkali cites "inadequate responses" to questions regarding their bid from the administrators, Geoff Rowley and Jason Baker of FRP Advisory LLP. Uralkali claims that the administrator has confirmed that the winning bid was "significantly inferior" to its own and Uralkali believes "the highest bid should have been determined as the winner" and that the administration process contained "misrepresentations and lack of transparency" and "failed to achieve the maximisation of sale proceeds for the benefit of creditors, shareholders and other stakeholders".

It says it made what it calls "an extremely generous offer to acquire the company's business, assets and goodwill", including a cash consideration of between £101.5million and £122million.Uralkali says its proposal and offer fell on deaf ears:

Following the submission of our proposal, the administrator refused to engage with Uralkali team, did not reply to phone calls and emails and communicated with Uralkali in a single email following close of business on August 7, 2018 that it had entered into an exclusivity arrangement with another bidder regarding a proposal to rescue the company. “Despite expiration of the deadline set by the Administrator, no rescue plan was submitted to the court for approval, which confirmed Uralkali’s view that the rescue option was not achievable in the timeline and under conditions proposed by the Administrator. Under these circumstances, it is surprising that no attempt was made by the Administrator to engage with Uralkali with respects to its bid for the assets and business of Force India.”

Replying to the news of the High Court action, administrators FRP told Autosport that all bidders for the team were treated the same. “All bidders were given equal opportunity to submit the best deal for Force India…“throughout, we (the Joint Administrators) have closely followed our statutory duties and objectives as administrators and had the advice of experienced legal counsel.”

If you are thinking about suing another company but are worried about the costs of resolving the dispute or going to court, Advantage Litigation Services can help. We have vast experience navigating the different ways of funding commercial dispute resolution and are best placed to help you identify the most appropriate funding option and litigation protection that will best benefit you and your business. Click here to contact us or call 0800 160 1298 to discuss how we can help you manage the risks and find a funding option that works for you.

 

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • A large scale contract dispute claim has commenced involving a Hull based energy plant and one of its main contractors. The plant – Energy Works Hull – terminated the contract for MW High Tech Projects as they claim that the contractor had not met the agreed project completion date. Energy Works Hull are seeking £133m in damages to cover the cost of rectifying defects, delay damages and added costs to complete works. In response, MW High Tech Projects is disputing the claim and has subsequently filed a counterclaim for just under £47m, based on provisions they say are in the original contract that provide for payment following a termination for convenience. The two parties are now heading for the High Court with claims and counterclaims stemming from failure to deliver the project, termination of the main contract and assignment of a key... Read More

  • Engineering and construction firm Bechtel now has a court date set to enable its appeal against the award of the HS2 £1bn Old Oak Common station construction partner contract. Read More

  • Whilst Covid-19 may have forced many parts of society to slow down and re-think our approach to all aspects of our lives, recent comments by a number of High Court judges would seem to indicate that this is certainly not happening in civil and commercial litigation. The 3 judges have expressed their disquiet over the ever increasing pervasiveness of hostile and antagonistic approaches to litigation where every point, good or bad, is taken. In the case of Navigator Equities Ltd & Ors v Deripaska from July this year, Mr Justice Andrew Baker said that, in the 30 years in which he had worked in commercial dispute resolution: There has been a significant general increase in hostility and aggressiveness in the conduct of disputes…the taking of any and every point, good or bad, and other failures to display proper independence from the litigating client... Read More