21 February 2024 , 18:47
469
0
A “reprehensible” lawyer has been ordered to pay tens of millions of pounds to a Saudi princess after he was sued over his management of her investments.
Ronald Gibbs, was an asset finance lawyer who rose to become a partner at Linklaters, one of the prestigious top five "magic circle" London commercial legal firms. In 2011, after quitting the firm, he agreed to help Princess Deema Bint Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud invest a $25million (£19million) investment pot handed to her by her father, Sultan bin Abdulaziz, on his death.
The money was earmarked for a property purchase in Paris, but when she changed her mind, it was instead sunk into assets all over the world; including a £17m 40-metre superyacht, London properties and a €3.3m apartment in Montenegro. The princess and her brother Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud later complained Mr Gibbs failed to return the princess' millions after being first asked to do so in 2013.
The princess sued the 66-year-old for return of her investment money and today won her case when Mr Justice Calver ruled in her favour, finding Mr Gibbs liable to pay her back her $25m investment pot, plus compound interest since 2018. As the full High Court trial began last month, the princess' barrister said she had sued for return of her original investment, as well as gains her financial advisors could have made with it since 2018.
Simon Atril, for the princess, said at the start of proceedings: “She seeks the long-awaited return of her money transferred to the defendant, a former Linklaters partner in 2011 - plus further compensation reflecting the loss of use of that money. He has never paid a penny of what he owes, all while spending millions on his superyacht and yacht-building business, maintaining his multi-national property empire, and making significant sales of assets, generating millions of pounds that he directed elsewhere than to the claimant."
Man Utd takeover expectations on Glazers' deadline day as Qatar 'plan £5bn bid'
Mr Gibbs says he has been left financially ruined by three years of legal wrangling (Supplied by Champion News)”This should be a straightforward case. Mr Gibbs' failure to sell the assets or return the funds is, among other things, a straightforward breach of the settlement agreement."
Mr Gibbs was debarred from defending the claim because of non-disclosure of evidence and failure to pay the sums ordered in interim damages, but had earlier put forward arguments which could amount to a defence, Mr Atrill said. He had claimed the settlement agreement allowed him to "continue to manage the portfolio" and liquidate it over time and that he had "no liability" to ensure the princess gets back at least her original investment
And representing himself in court, the former high-flyer claimed he had been left financially ruined by three years of legal wrangling and reduced to facing the princess' team of top lawyers by himself - and with nothing more than a "small laptop and a £50 printer".
He argued: “You can't get blood out of a stone. There is no point asking me to pay funds I don't have. If I didn't have an old age pension, I would have struggled to pay the Tube fare today. My small laptop is basically all I have."
The judge slammed his conduct as "reprehensible" and ordered him to give back the princess' investment and damages. The exact amount he will have to repay has not yet been finally calculated by lawyers, but is likely to be around £30 million as the judge ruled the princess is entitled to 9% a year in interest on the invested sum.
Giving judgement today, Mr Justice Calver said: “The terms of the settlement agreement are clear. Once he received the letter signed by the claimant instructing him to liquidate the assets in the investment portfolio, which he received on 25 April 2018, Mr. Gibbs was obliged to liquidate those assets as soon as reasonably possible, seeking to realise liquidation proceeds of US$25 million, but avoiding penalties and fire sale situations.
"The net liquidation proceeds were to be paid into the claimant’s specified bank account. Mr Gibbs is accordingly in breach of contract in respect of his failure to liquidate each of the assets referred...which could have been, but were not, liquidated by him on the stated dates. Mr Gibbs has done everything he possibly could to avoid returning these funds to the claimant and his behaviour has been reprehensible."