The expert appointed to divide the assets of private investor Joseph Ackerman’s family business has denied allegations of fraud, collusion and bias at the high court.
Andrew Thornhill QC dismissed allegations that he favoured Ackerman’s sister-in-law Naomi and nephew Barry when preparing a Provisional Adjustment Report dividing the company’s assets, as “extreme and poorly thought-through”.
His counsel, Andrew Onslow QC, argued that his client was an experienced professional of otherwise undoubted integrity, who had very wide powers of investigation and adjustment when preparing the report.
He argued that his client had made a fair division of assets, taking into account “removed assets” which had already been used to the benefit of the parties or others.
He said that, by June 2009, there were irreconcilable differences between Joseph and Naomi Ackerman which were acrimonious and extremely damaging to the Ackerman businesses and that the only realistic solution was to appoint someone like Thornhill to make a binding determination as to how the assets should be allocated.
He said that Thornhill had an “absolute discretion” to decide what was fair and convenient, and that none of Ackerman’s complaints could support an allegation of bias.
He argued that Ackerman’s case is not realistic, and should be dismissed.
Joseph Ackerman claims that the consequence of the Provisional Adjustment Report is to deprive him of the business he built, initially together with his late brother Jack, and which he claims to have run for the joint benefit of the whole family since 1989.
He is seeking an order to retains a beneficial interest in the companies and assets transferred to Naomi and Barry’s company Bana One.
The trial is scheduled to last until 9 December.
