Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Leggatt |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2011 FOLIO 1267 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 15 November 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
Mr Justice Leggatt
Case No: 2011 FOLIO 1267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Philip Moser QC and Fiona Banks (instructed by Ashfords LLP) for the Claimant
Adrian Beltrami QC and David Simpson (instructed by Gibson & Co. Solicitors Limited) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 3 – 21 October 2013
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
| Section | Para. Number |
| A. INTRODUCTION | 1 |
| The parties and the claim | 2 |
| The claim in brief | 5 |
| Witnesses | 12 |
| Evidence based on recollection | 15 |
| B. FACTUAL HISTORY | 24 |
| Manuel Champalimaud | 25 |
| Meeting in Zurich in March 2005 | 29 |
| Mr Champalimaud's understanding of English | 31 |
| Interest in buying the family cement business | 34 |
| Mr Champalimaud's financial sophistication | 38 |
| Opening Gestmin's accounts | 39 |
| The Customer Profile Form | 41 |
| Portfolio Mandate | 47 |
| Visit to London in April 2005 | 49 |
| Meeting with Mr Wichmann | 54 |
| Mr Lopes | 56 |
| The July 2005 investments | 57 |
| Industrial investments | 60 |
| Two more alternative investments | 64 |
| Investment in QWIL | 65 |
| More investments | 73 |
| The Celbi Bid | 77 |
| Meeting in April 2006 | 79 |
| Loan request | 82 |
| Meetings in June & July 2006 | 90 |
| Gestmin's change of strategy | 92 |
| Instructions to sell QWIL | 100 |
| Liquidation of the Portfolio | 104 |
| Subsequent history of the QWIL investment | 107 |
| Notification of Gestmin's claim | 114 |
| C. DUTIES OWED BY CREDIT SUISSE | 116 |
| Was there a duty to explain risks? | 121 |
| D. ALLEGED BREACHES OF DUTY | 125 |
| (1) Consistency with Gestmin's investment objectives | 132 |
| (2) Gestmin's alternative case on suitability | 146 |
| (3) The misrepresentation claim | 154 |
| (4) Alleged failure to explain the risks | 158 |
| (5) The Portuguese Law issue | 165 |
| Conclusion on liability | 176 |
| E. QUANTUM OF LOSS | 177 |
| Date of loss | 178 |
| Calculation of loss | 191 |
| Alternative use | 192 |
| F. DECISION | 197 |
A. INTRODUCTION
On 8 December 2005 the claimant in this case ("Gestmin") invested €11,150,000 in an Initial Public Offering of shares in a company called Queen's Walk Investment Limited ("QWIL"). It did so on the advice of the second defendant, Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited. In this action Gestmin claims that the advice was negligent and asks the court to award damages for loss suffered as a result of making the investment.
The parties and the contract
Gestmin is a Portuguese company established in 2004 as an investment vehicle for Mr Manuel Champalimaud.
The defendants are companies in the Credit Suisse group of companies. It is common ground that the proper party to the claim is the second defendant and for convenience I shall refer to that company as "Credit Suisse".
It is not in dispute that in April 2005 Gestmin and Credit Suisse entered into a Client Agreement under which Credit Suisse agreed to provide private banking services to Gestmin consisting of "general investment advisory and dealing services in securities". The relationship manager for Gestmin and Mr Champalimaud's point of contact with Credit Suisse was Mr Humberto de Sousa who, like Mr Champalimaud, is Portuguese. At the relevant time Mr Sousa was a director of Credit Suisse, based in London but dealing mainly with Portuguese and Spanish clients.
The claim in brief
Between July 2005 and July 2006 Gestmin made a series of investments in financial products on the advice of Credit Suisse.
Gestmin's claim in this action relates to only one of the investments made: the purchase in December 2005 of 1,115,000 shares in QWIL at a price of €10 per share. QWIL was an investment company whose strategy was to invest in the 'equity' or 'first loss' tranche of mortgage-backed securities. For reasons that are now well known, that strategy has not proved to be a rewarding one for those who held investments in such securities at the time of the 'sub prime mortgage crisis' which began in 2007 and reached its height in 2008. In the last quarter of 2008 the quoted price of shares in QWIL fell as low as €0.51 per share. The value of the shares subsequently recovered somewhat but is still far below the price for which they were purchased by Gestmin.
Gestmin gave instructions to Credit Suisse in September 2006 to try to sell several of its investments, including its shareholding in QWIL. In November 2006 Credit Suisse was instructed to liquidate Gestmin's entire portfolio. For reasons which are in dispute, the shares in QWIL have still not been sold. It is agreed between the parties' financial experts that as at 30 September 2013 the value of the shares was around €3.9 million.
The first notification of a potential claim by Gestmin was a letter sent on its behalf by English solicitors to Credit Suisse on 14 September 2010. The present action was begun in October 2011, almost six years after the investment in QWIL was made.
Gestmin's central complaint is that QWIL was an unsuitable investment for Credit Suisse to recommend because it was an investment with high risk and low liquidity, whereas Gestmin's objectives were allegedly to make investments with low risk and high liquidity which would provide collateral for loans up to a high percentage of their value.
A striking difficulty which Gestmin faces in advancing this case is that, when Gestmin opened its account with Credit Suisse, Mr Champalimaud signed forms which identified Gestmin's investment objective as long term capital growth and indicated that Gestmin was prepared to accept a high level of risk and that its liquidity needs were low. Gestmin's response to this has been to allege that Mr Champalimaud signed the forms under a mistake as to their contents and that Credit Suisse was aware of and indeed responsible for this mistake.
Gestmin further alleges that Credit Suisse misrepresented and/or failed to explain to Gestmin the risks of investing in QWIL. A point is also taken that offering shares in QWIL to Gestmin allegedly involved a breach of Portuguese law.
Witnesses
In addition to Mr Champalimaud, Gestmin called six further witnesses of fact. They were:
i) Mr Jorge de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer who is an old friend of Mr Champalimaud;
ii) Mr Fernando Lopes, the former Financial Director of Gestmin;
iii) Ms Isabel Santos, who is Mr Champalimaud's secretary;
iv) Mr Antonio Oliveira, the Investments Director of Gestmin;
v) Mr Luis Medeiros, who is employed by Gestmin as a Financial Analyst; and
vi) Mr Manuel Berberan, who works for Banco Portugues de Investimento ("BPI").
Credit Suisse called three witnesses of fact: Mr Sousa; his assistant Mr Clausell; and Mr Andreas Wichmann who also worked for Credit Suisse at the relevant time.
In addition, each party called an expert witness on financial investment and Gestmin (but not Credit Suisse) called an expert on Portuguese securities law.
Evidence based on recollection
An obvious difficulty which affects allegations and oral evidence based on recollection of events which occurred several years ago is the unreliability of human memory.
While everyone knows that memory is fallible, I do not believe that the legal system has sufficiently absorbed the lessons of a century of psychological research into the nature of memory and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. One of the most important lessons of such research is that in everyday life we are not aware of the extent to which our own and other people's memories are unreliable and believe our memories to be more faithful than they are. Two common (and related) errors are to suppose: (1) that the stronger and more vivid is our feeling or experience of recollection, the more likely the recollection is to be accurate; and (2) that the more confident another person is in their recollection, the more likely their recollection is to be accurate.
Underlying both these errors is a faulty model of memory as a mental record which is fixed at the time of experience of an event and then fades (more or less slowly) over time. In fact, psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. This is true even of so-called 'flashbulb' memories, that is memories of experiencing or learning of a particularly shocking or traumatic event. (The very description 'flashbulb' memory is in fact misleading, reflecting as it does the misconception that memory operates like a camera or other device that makes a fixed record of an experience.) External information can intrude into a witness's memory, as can his or her own thoughts and beliefs, and both can cause dramatic changes in recollection. Events can come to be recalled as memories which did not happen at all or which happened to someone else (referred to in the literature as a failure of source memory).
Memory is especially unreliable when it comes to recalling past beliefs. Our memories of past beliefs are revised to make them more consistent with our present beliefs. Studies have also shown that memory is particularly vulnerable to interference and alteration when a person is presented with new information or suggestions about an event in circumstances where his or her memory of it is already weak due to the passage of time.
The process of civil litigation itself subjects the memories of witnesses to powerful biases. The nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mental Health Care (UK) Ltd v Edward Lupen Healthcare Ltd
...... . 24 Another feature of this case is that although MHC's ... on recollection of such events — see Gestmin SGPS SA v. Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] ......
-
Paul Richards v Speechly Bircham LLP
...of the case the Firm relied upon well-known passage of the judgment of Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 3560(Comm), [15] to [22], where the judge made observations upon the relative weight to be attributed to witness testimony compared to the informati......
-
Penny Ann Lavis v Nursing and Midwifery Council
...Miss Christie-Brown invites me to consider Leggatt J's comments in his judgment in the case of Gestmin SGPS SA v (1) Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd (2) Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd. [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm), where he referred to the: "common (and related) errors" in supposing "… (1) that th......
-
E D & F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd
...this, it is important to keep firmly in mind the approach of Leggatt J (as he then was) in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm), which was approved by Lord Kerr (in a dissenting judgment) in R (on the application of Bancoult No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreig......
-
It's Cocoa, Jim, But Not As We Know It: Court's Modern Interpretation Of Underwriters' And Brokers' Duties #4 - Getting The Witness Evidence Right And New Rules
...witness testimony with reference to documents in the case. This method was reflected in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) which has now been adopted in a number of cases. As our brains do not fix memories like digital content on a hard drive, Leggatt J referre......
-
Court Of Session Confirms The Standard Of Evidence Required In Mesothelioma Claims
...his recollection of events was unreliable. Agreeing with the observations of Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm), he "The process of attempting to remember events in the distant past is an inherently fallible one; it is a process that is highly su......
-
One step forward and two steps back? The ‘20 Principles’ for questioning vulnerable witnesses and the lack of an evidence-based approach
...in court. It is an issue which is beginning to attract theattention of senior judges.In Gestmin SGPS SA vCredit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm), a civil dispute, MrJustice Leggatt (now Lord Justice Leggatt) made this observation:While everyone knows that memory is fallible, I do not......
-
Witness Statements for Employment Tribunals in England and Wales: What are the ‘Issues’?
...statementand of coming to court to give evidence for one side in the dispute.’Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS SAvCredit Suisse (UK) Ltd 2013 EWHC 3560 (Comm).290 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof •‘The true voices of the witnesses, and the extent of their real recollection, which beca......