AAH Pharmaceuticals - Case Update

The High Court has dismissed a Norwich Pharmacal application brought by commercial landlords seeking disclosure from a company’s directors, liquidators, and their firm relating to the collapse of a tenant company.

AAH Pharmaceuticals entered insolvent liquidation in April 2024, with Martin Armstrong and Andrew Bailey of Turpin Barker Armstrong appointed joint liquidators.

The claimants to this Norwich Pharmacal application, trustees of a property trust, alleged they were victims of an unlawful means conspiracy involving entities within the “Aurelius Group” that intentionally left AAH without means to pay rent through a corporate restructuring.

The landlords sought broad pre-action disclosure from a slew of parties, including the liquidators and their firm Turpin Baker Armstrong, to identify alleged conspirators and wrongdoing. However, they conceded AAH was not the victim of undervalue asset extraction and disavowed any suggestion that the liquidators were complicit in wrongdoing.

The Court ultimately rejected the application, finding that the claimants already had sufficient knowledge of the alleged conspiracy’s key players and the general contours of the wrongdoing to proceed with a claim, even if further facts might emerge later.

The Court expressed skepticism about the conspiracy claim’s strength, noting it essentially amounted to an allegation that lawful actions—such as ceasing funding—were used with unlawful intent. Even if there were arguable merit, the application failed because Norwich Pharmacal relief requires the disclosure be necessary in the interests of justice. Here, it was held unnecessary because the claimants already knew who to sue and what to allege.

The Court also took the opportunity to warn against the use of Norwich Pharmacal orders to perform litigation fishing expeditions. The broad scope of the requested disclosure reinforced the Court’s reluctance to intervene. While the claimants remain unsecured creditors in the liquidation of AAH and have rights under that process, the Court refused to compel the defendants—particularly the liquidators and their firm—to provide information outside of those statutory mechanisms.

Read the decision HERE.

Professionals involved:

• Christopher Boardman KC of Radcliffe Chambers (instructed by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) for the liquidators Martin Armstrong and Andrew Bailey, and their firm Turpin Barker Armstrong

• Robert Deacon of Thomas More Chambers (instructed by Audley Chaucer) for the first defendant, Graham Wiseman

• David Peters KC of Essex Court Chambers (instructed by Enyo Law) for the second to fourth defendants, Wendy Hall, Robin Dargue and Dominik Mueser

• Andrew McLeod and Moritz Grimm of One Essex Court (instructed by Pinsent Masons) for the claimants