Victory for Nigerian oil tycoon Michael Prest’s wife as ‘cheats’ charter’ overturned in landmark Supreme Court divorce case

Millionaires will not be able to use their businesses to shield their wealth from their spouses

The most senior judges in the land quashed any chance of a “cheat’s charter” when they ordered a millionaire businessman to hand over company properties to his former wife.

The hotly-awaited ruling was greeted as a victory for fairness by lawyers who nevertheless said it was extraordinary and would send a ripple thought the justice system. While family solicitors insisted it was the most important review of company law since Victorian times, some working in the corporate sector warned that it threatened to open a Pandora ‘s Box.

The landmark case, which centred around the £17.5 million divorce of oil tycoon Michael Prest and his wife Yasmin, had pitched the family division and the commercial division of the High Court against each other and many had presumed the more powerful corporate side would win.

But in allowing Mrs Prest’s appeal, the seven justices of the Supreme Court backed the long held belief that family courts could exercise legal discretion when sharing assets.

Today Mrs Prest said she was “delighted and relieved”. She told The Independent: “It’s been tough at times, but I’ve had my faith and I knew I was doing the right thing for myself, for my children, and for others who may find themselves in a similar position. I’ve been quietly confident that justice will prevail.”

Her lawyer Jeremy Posnansky QC, of Farrer & Co, added: “Decent husbands and wives have nothing to worry about. Honest company directors have nothing to fear. But for those who misuse companies to cheat their spouses on divorce and for company directors who hide the truth behind a bogus corporate façade, the Supreme Court has shown that truth and reality will prevail.”

He continued: “The judgements aren’t only important for matrimonial law, but also for company law and entrepreneurs.  It’s the most authoritative review and refinement of the law about piercing the corporate veil since 1897.”

“This decision has preserved the sanctity of the corporate structure and supported the Court of Appeal judgment in my clients’ favour,” said Sarah Ingram, representing Mr Prest’s Petrodel companies, adding:  “However in trying to find another way to give the wife what she is seeking, the Supreme Court has also left a lot of unanswered questions which may cause problems in the future for family companies. ”

Mr Michael Prest, 51, and his wife, who met twenty years ago in London, enjoyed the fruits of the fortune he amassed, sending their son and three daughters to public school, and alternating their time between a multi-million pound house in London and homes in the Caribbean and Nigeria, where he was born the son of a Itsekiri chief before moving to the UK as a child.

After their separation in 2008 Mr Prest, who lives in Monaco, refused to pay the multi-million pound settlement to his 50-year-old ex-wife – a British-born IT consultant who has dual Nigerian nationality like her husband. The High Court, describing the husband as a manipulative and a “wholly unreliable witness”, ordered the transfer of 13 properties from his companies as part payment.

But the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Petrodel Group companies, representing seven of the properties. While the judges did not reverse the £17.5 million award, they said that Mrs Prest could not claim assets.

Family lawyers insisted that such a situation created a “cheat’s charter” where the wealthy could simply hide assets in companies and ignore court orders. Commercial experts, however, claimed that “piercing the corporate veil” would create an impossible position where spouses were allowed to tread where other creditors are not.

Today, however, the Supreme Court ruled that, on the basis the companies were wholly owned by the husband, Mrs Prest was entitled to the properties. The judges added that there was no evidence to contradict the High Court inference that Mr Prest had deliberately sought to conceal them and failed to comply with court orders because the companies were “beneficially” owned by him. However, they added that the corporate veil could only be pierced in exceptional cases.

“The judgment is a victory for the family courts and fair sharing of assets,” said William Healing, Family Law Partner at Kingsley Napley. “Today the court has parted the corporate veil. The decision is a blow against spouses who seek to evade their responsibilities using company structures.”

Michael Hutchinson, of Mayer Brown, said: “The Supreme Court has handed down a landmark decision in which, for the first time since at least the end of the19th century, it has accepted a general exception to the rule against ‘piercing the corporate veil’.

”This is an extraordinary decision and the implications for corporate governance are potentially huge. Businesses and lawyers will be poring over the judgment for some time to try to understand its limits.“

”Even though the corporate veil has not been pierced, the judgement will have significant ramifications and is likely to open Pandora’s Box when it comes to the overlap of divorce proceedings and company law,“ added Kyri Papantoniou, Corporate Partner at Seddons. ”Only time will tell the true impact of today’s ruling.

 

independent UK

 

Love Ain’t For Kids’ Rihanna Hits Back At Chris Brown’s ‘Wifey’ Diss Over Break Up

Brown confirmed split over weekend – claimed he was ‘too young’ for just one girl.

Rihanna has hit back at Chris Brown following his rant at the weekend explaining the couple’s break up in a cryptic tweet. Claiming “nothing but 100% honesty, respect and loyalty” was key to love, the star went on to claim she wasn’t interested in “kidz” (sic) following her ex’s admission they’d broken up because he was “too young” to “wifey” someone.

Speaking at the weekend when he celebrated his 24th birthday with a string of parties in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York, the singer confirmed the couple had split following weeks of speculation.

Rihanna clearly wasn’t pleased with his view of the situation and took to Twitter today to insist love “ain’t for kidz” (sic).

 

Rihanna and Chris rekindled their love after three years in December, despite much criticism for the Diamonds star going back to the man who brutally assualted her. But in a string of interviews she defended her decision and declared her love for him.

Fast forward five months though and it’s all over, with Chris claiming he was just too young to settle on one woman. When asked during an interview with the Kyle & Jackie O Show on Australian station 2DayFM, he claimed he wanted “to really see as many girls as possible,” for his birthday.

Asked then whether he was in a relationship with Rihanna he explained: “I’m going to do it solo, at the end of the day, she’s already doing her thing, she’s on the road … there’s always going to be love, but I’m just going to do me. I’m a grown man.”

Chris Brown celebrates birthday in Las Vegas with lots of girls (Splash News)

“The way I look at it is, I’m always going to love that person, but people have differences, and people have different wants and needs, at the end of the day she’s a young girl. I can’t really be focused on wife-ing somebody that young, and I’m young too.”

He went on: “I just got to step forward and be the man and be the best Chris Brown I can be instead of worrying about whoever else is going to be in my side pocket.”

Classy guy Ri! Let’s hope this is them over for good now – we don’t think we can take the drama!

That didn’t last long! Rihanna and Chris Brown loved up at Christmas

Rihanna and Chris

 

 

Source-entertainmentwise

Rihanna goes big for Chris Brown !

 

Rihanna and Chris Brown are rumored to be attending the 2013 Grammys together.

Rihanna is reportedly going all out for Chris Brown’s 24th birthday on 5 May. The singer has bought Chris a US$1 million Mercedes Benz SLR Stirling Moss. Only 75 of the limited edition cars were ever made and now Riri has made sure her boo has one. Lucky guy!

 

 

 

 

 MTV Base

Revealed: The lady who wrecked Kate Henshaw’s marriage

The buzz about Nollywood actress Kate Henshaw and her better half of 12 years, Roderick James Nuttal’s crashed marriage may have come and gone but one thing that is still shrouded in secrecy is the real reason behind the unexpected separation from one of the then best couples in the entertainment industry.

It would be recalled that there were serious of tales that trailed the breakup and one of them was that her hubby who’s the Managing Director of Ledrop Nigeria Ltd (agents for Jack Daniels and Piper Hiedsieck) was romancing his secretary whose name was unknown, hence our curiosity to get to the root of the story.

This office after several investigations discovered that the said secretary is the main architect of the crashed union. Her name, we can exclusively disclose is Angela Gordon a twenty four years old pretty lady from the South South part of the country. Angela according to our source is a staff at Mr. Nuttal’s company located at Ligali Ayorinde, Victoria Island, Lagos.

The duo according to the story kicked off a secret romance which was fueled by Angela’s mum three years ago while kate’s marriage with her husband was still intact until the actress got wind of their affair.

The news of the romance we reliably learnt was brought to Kate’s notice by one of the aggrieved staff of her husband when it was obvious Angela was towing the part of a second wife. The revelation we learnt resulted to a surprise visit to her hubby’s office. “Aunty Kate stormed her husband’s office on this fateful evening unannounced and was shocked to find her husband with Angela in an uncompromising position”, “and I also learnt that she had initially lied that she was on a movie set in Lekki before paying the unwelcomed visit that ended their union”, the source revealed.

We further squealed that serious argument ensued between the two ladies and Mr. Nuttal we learnt had to confirm his affair with his secretary to his wife who became perplexed immediately. Our grapevine also added that the height of it was when Kate’s hubby gave her an option of either accepting things as it were or bow out of the marriage if she can’t stand his relationship with Angela.

The outcome of the storm however was the official statement from the estranged couple months later announcing their separation without any concrete reason when it was obvious the marriage could not go on.

Angela now cruises a black Range Rover Sport and lives in a cozy 3-bedroom apartment around Lekki phase 1 courtesy of her white lover. The new madam of the house as she’s popularly called by friends also allegedly miscarried a baby for Nuttal around late last year 2012 while the duo is also said to be flaunting their romance since the couple went their separate ways with Angela’s mum being her backbone.

In our facts finding mission, this office got in touch with Kate Henshaw who told us to feel free to ask her any question, she however denied the angle of the secretary, “No, that’s not the fact, Mr. Nuttal’s secretary is Yetunde and she has nothing to do with this, but for Angela, I don’t have much to say on this but I know her, she’s one of the Sales girls, so thanks for getting in touch all the same”, she ended in a final tone. Efforts to speak to Mr. Nuttal proved abortive as at press time. We shall be bringing her pictures in our next edition as we unfold more facts of the romance.

Culled from National Enquirer Magazine

Rihanna & Chris Brown Relationship: Brown’s Father ‘Really Didn’t Want Them Back Together’

Rihanna and Chris Brown’s relationship is not only hard to keep up with (are they on? Are they off?), it’s also a contentious one ever since that fateful night at the Grammys four years ago. One man in particular who is not a fan of the two singers’ union is Chris Brown’s dad, Clinton.

“I personally really didn’t want him and Rihanna back together,” Clinton, 48, said in an exclusive interview with New York Daily News. In his opinion, they’re not balanced, and relationships like these often end badly.

“I hate to use examples, but Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse — I mean I could go on and on!,” continued the man who split from Brown’s mother when Chris was six years old, but is reportedly still very much present in his life. “Is that a given — that you can’t have fortune and fame without [death] being the end result?”

And who would Clinton like to see his son with, if not with the “We Found Love” beauty? “American Idol” winner Jordin Sparks, who collaborated with Chris on the 2008 hit “No Air.”

“She’s a wholesome young lady, very pretty,” Clinton told Daily News of Sparks.

Brown and Rihanna have both publicly dealt with the scrutiny over their tumultuous relationship. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine back in January, the 25-year-old Bajan pop star said “it’s different now. We don’t have those types of arguments anymore. We talk about shit. We value each other. We know exactly what we have now, and we don’t want to lose that… He doesn’t have the luxury of fucking up again.”

A couple of months later, Brown, 23, tried to explain how the two of them got back together. “I just tried my best to be the best man I could be over the years and just show her how remorseful and sorry I was for the incident,” he said in a radio interview with Ryan Seacrest in March, “She’s a wonderful person I’m eternally grateful and thankful [for her forgiveness].

Unsurprisingly, Clinton isn’t alone in his thoughts the two singers should be kept apart. Another man adding fuel to the fire is rapper Drake, who reportedly romanced Rihanna while she and Brown were broken up.

Earlier this month, the 26-year-old Canadian rapper did an interview with East Village Radio and addressed his ongoing feud with Brown: “His insecurities are the fact that I make better music than him, that I’m more popping than him and that at one point in life the woman that he loves fell into my lap,” he said, adding: “I did what a real n***a would do and treated her with respect.