High Court orders $83M to be repaid to investors in New Nigel Supermarket deal

Sep 30, 2024 News

The High Court last Friday ordered that businessman Otillo Pereira to repay their investors, Jamal Shamsudeen and Ian Shamsudeen in excess of $83 million for failing to uphold their end of the bargain in the New Nigel Supermarket business deal.

The Shamsudeens had taken Perreira and his co defendants to court over the sum on the grounds of a failure of consideration and unjust enrichment. The Shamsudeens had brought the claim against Perreira and his company jointly and severally for the operations of the New Nigel Supermarket.
According to the court document, the issues arising for consideration before the Court were: whether the evidence establishes a basis for bringing a claim against the defendant in his capacity as director of the company; whether the parties involved had an agreement with respect to the money advanced by the Shamshudeens. And, if not, whether the money is repayable to the investors.

The Shamshudeens were represented by attorney, Senior Counsel, Roysdale Forde while, Attorney Nigel Hughes and Jed Vasconcellos represented Pereira and his company Reguim International Inc. Justice Fidela Corbin presided over the matter.
According to court documents, around November 2018, Perreira approached Jamal and and Ian Shamsudeen requesting a loan of $70,000,000.00 (seventy million dollars) for him to invest in a supermarket venture.

At the meeting, the businessman informed them that he had acquired a power of attorney from Joseph Nigel Johnson in respect of the building and supermarket building known as Nigel’s Supermarket. He informed them that he wanted to acquire the building, refurbish and restock the supermarket.

The investors informed Perreira that they would consider his request. About a week later they informed him that they would lend him $70,000,000.00 to invest in the supermarket venture. At that time the parties did not agree to any terms and conditions of the loan.
At that time Perreira was informed that the Shamsudeens would invest $70,000,000 which was to be repaid by him (Perreira) personally “within a year, half of the sum being $35,000,000 …6 months from January 2019 that is to say July 2019 and the balance by January 2020.

“The 1st defendant [Perreira] response to his position on the sum and the dates for repayment was that “we will see”. As a result, Mr. J Shamsudeen informed the businessman that he and Ian Shamshudeen would each loan him the sum of $35,000,000.00.

The business proposal formed part of a debt recovery proposal which was submitted by and in the name of the company Reguim International Inc, around 22nd November 2018. Perreira assert that the money was to be treated as an investment repayable over a 20 year period. They said that the 1st J Shamsudeen was part of the team that prepared the Nigel Supermarket Debt Recovery Proposal which was submitted to Republic Bank and there was a 20 year repayment structure and not one year. The businessman also disputed inter alia that any agreement was made for Shamsudeens to be listed as a shareholder or director of the company.

In her ruling, Justice Corbin noted that the investors advanced the money with the expectation that an agreement would be reached with respect to the terms governing the sums advanced. The judge noted that “This expectation did not materialise and no agreement was reached….”
As such, the court found that the defendant has been unjustly enriched and failed to establish a defence to the restitutionary claim. As a result, the judge said that the defendant must therefore repay the sums by which he had been unjustly enriched.

The defendant Perreira shall pay the sum of $12,350,000.00 to Mr. J Shamshudeen being the total sum advanced by him. The company shall repay the sum of $36,000,000.00 to Shamsudeen being the total sum advanced by him and the company shall repay the sum of $35,000,000.00 to Mr. I Shamshudeen being the sum advanced him. Meanwhile in determining the basis upon which costs should be quantified, the court took into consideration all the circumstances including the reasonable rate for the attorney-at-law, the nature and value of the claim, the time reasonably spent in dealing with the matter and awarded costs to the defendants in the sum of $1,500,000.

deal, High Court, investors, New Nigel Supermarket

Latest News

High Court orders $83M to be repaid to investors in New Nigel Supermarket deal

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Green Machine returns to RAN Sevens

GASA snubs Delroy Tyrrell for World Championships

Cricket Australia appoints former West Indian...

GBA appoints International Technical Officer...

Warriors triumph but Royals lead standings

D-Up Basketball Academy Training camp brings...

Features/Columnists

A false panacea for electoral integrity

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

President Ali’s tough love

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

High Court orders $83M to be repaid to investors in New Nigel Supermarket deal

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]