BL-2025-000785 - [2025] EWHC 2470 (Ch)

Fecha: 30-Sep-2025

F. The receivership application in the South Carolina courts

F.The receivership application in the South Carolina courts

12.

On 6 March 2023, the plaintiff in the Park Proceedings issued a “Receivership Motion” seeking to appoint a receiver over CIHL: Mann J Judgment/[44]. According to the terms of the South Carolina Code (set out by Mann J at Mann J Judgment/[46]), “a receiver may be appointed (i) when a corporation has been dissolved, is insolvent or in imminent danger of insolvency or has forfeited its corporate rights and, in like cases, of the property within this State of foreign corporations and/or (ii) in such other cases as are provided by law or may be in accordance with the existing practice”.

13.

The jurisdictional basis for the receivership motion against CIHL was said to be the presence and operation in the US of an entity referred to as “NAAC”. On that basis, the appointment of a receiver over CIHL was justified for all purposes, including but not limited to marshalling available assets of CIHL and its subsidiaries, successors and assigns: Mann J Judgment/[45]. NAAC stands for the “North American Asbestos Corporation”, a directly and wholly owned subsidiary of CIHL established by CIHL in October 1953. NAAC was incorporated in the State of Illinois in the US to assist in the marketing of asbestos in the US, to act as a liaison between Egnep Pty Ltd (the principal asbestos mining company in the Cape Group until 1979: Mann J Judgment/[9]) and another Cape company (Casap) on the one hand and US purchasers of asbestos on the other, and to purchase and re-sell asbestos into the US market on its own account: Mann J Judgment/[12].

14.

From the early 1970s, NAAC was the defendant in numerous product liability claims. It eventually ran out of insurance cover and was liquidated and then dissolved in 1978. It has never been restored: Mann J Judgment/[13].

15.

Continental Productions Corporation or “CPC” took over from NAAC on its liquidation: Mann J Judgment/[32(ii)].

16.

In the Mann J Judgment/[47], Mann J recorded:

That the fundamental factual basis for appointing a receiver was the assertion that CIHL was operating through NAAC and CPC in the US. The Mann J Judgment refers to the confusion in the South Carolina proceedings regarding the entities within the Cape Group that are implicated in the Receivership Motion. It seems to me clear that the Receivership Motion can only (in the first instance) be directed to CIHL and not any other Cape group entity, including in particular Cape Jersey. That is because: (i) NAAC was a subsidiary of CIHL and not of Cape Jersey; (ii) Cape Jersey was incorporated (in 2011: see [6(iv)]) after NAAC was dissolved (in 1978: see [14]). Accordingly, I shall refer to CIHL from hereon, but any orders or declarations that I make will have to reflect the confusing way in which the South Carolina proceedings have been framed.

ii)

That the receivership was not merely sought against CIHL, but also over (i) its subsidiaries and global affiliates; and (ii) its successors and assigns, with an objective of “marshalling” the assets of CIHL: see Mann J Judgment/[47]. Thus, although the nexus between NAAC and CIHL is the initial basis for the Receivership Motion, the Receivership Motion then builds on that relationship to stretch to many other entities in the Cape group.

17.

The receivership order sought in the Park Proceedings was made on 16 March 2023, without a hearing and without any substantive judgment stating the reasons for the making of the order: Mann J Judgment/[48]. I shall refer to it as the “Receivership Order”. The order is appended to the Mann J Judgment.

18.

Mr Peter Protopapas (the First Defendant in these proceedings) was appointed the receiver by way of the Receivership Order.