![BL-2025-000785 - [2025] EWHC 2470 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
N. The Settlement Agreement
N.The Settlement Agreement
Proceedings and procedural steps based upon the Receivership Order continue in the US. The adverse effects of these steps as described by Mann J (Mann J Judgment/[113] ff) thus continue, notwithstanding the Mann J Order (which has been disregarded by Mr Protopapas).
On 11 April 2025, a “Settlement Agreement” was concluded between (i) the targets of the litigation in the US, as evinced by the Park Proceedings and the Tibbs Proceedings), namely CIHL and (for the avoidance of doubt) Cape Jersey and (ii) various the defendants to the Third Party Claim brought by Mr Protopapas. The parties to the Settlement Agreement are (without differentiation) referred to by me as the “Parties”.
Following a series of detailed recitals (which I do not set out) the Settlement Agreement provides for the compromise and release of any and all disputes subsisting between the Parties and to dismiss all proceedings in respect of the “Allegations”. The Allegations are broadly defined as meaning:
…both (i) the claims asserted in the Tibbs claim (including in the Third-Party Complaint made within it), and (ii) any claims made in the future in any asbestos-related personal injury claims that may be asserted in the USA based in part or in whole upon alleged liability for the acts of CIHL, and in either case including but not limited to the claim that each of the Parties is, or is a successor in interest to an entity that was, the alter ego of or part of a single business enterprise with CIHL and any claim on the right to pierce the corporate veil of CIHL.
The Settlement Agreement is governed by English law and there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England.
- Heading
- A. Introduction
- B. The Park Proceedings (proceedings commenced in South Carolina)
- The “Cape” defendants to the Park Proceedings
- D. Constitution of the Park Proceedings in South Carolina
- E. Apparent conclusion of the Park Proceedings
- F. The receivership application in the South Carolina courts
- G. Exorbitant nature of the Receivership Order
- H. Mr Protopapas as the First Defendant in these proceedings
- The Tibbs Proceedings
- J. Third party claims
- K. “Single economic unit”: the factual basis for the Receivership Order and the Third Party Claim
- Declarations and orders made by Mann J in the proceedings before him
- The Cape Scheme and the David Richards J Order
- N. The Settlement Agreement
- O. The claims in the present proceedings
- P. The power in this court to make declarations
- Q. Is this a case where it is appropriate for this court to consider making declarations?
- R. Are the declarations properly and soundly based?
- T. Declarations at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the draft order
- Conclusions