‘Being nice’ not key to Liberman family’s ethical investment fund case, court hears
Counsel for Impact, Philip Crutchfield, QC, told Justice Peter Riordan it was a simple contract dispute and Impact acted in line with its contract, which did not stipulate it had to go ahead with an equity raising.
“As you said your honour, this case is about whether or not our clients were entitled to do what they did, not whether they were nice about it.”
“In a nutshell, your honour, with respect, should not be swayed by any underlying value judgments here,” Mr Crutchfield said.
The Supreme Court heard on Tuesday that Impact’s chief operating officer at the time, Ingrid van Dijken, took Impact chief executive Daniel Madhavan to task over email because of how Impact had handled investors in the scheme, which included the parents of a then staff member at Impact.
Counsel for investors, Christopher Caleo, QC, said Ms van Dijken wrote in the email the profit should be shared.
“Even in the meeting that was held the proceeding day, everyone had always agreed that it was clear in the presentation that we would syndicate the agreement,” Mr Caleo said Ms van Dijken’s email read.
“An equitable compensation seen from that point of view is a fair option when you take into consideration that this substantial windfall has only been made possible by people who had funded the deposit for IIG (Impact).”
Mr Caleo told the court Impact had modelled the returns to it under the syndicate agreement as well as under a quick sale deal and found the latter option provided more profit immediately to Impact.