Max Mallin KC

Banking and financial services

Max’s background in the financial markets ensures that he gives clients a competitive edge in dealing with complicated disputes involving banks, financial institutions, and complex financial instruments such as derivatives and cryptocurrencies. He has wide experience in cases involving improper trading on financial and commodities markets such as front-running, market manipulation and mispricing. In recent years he has acted for many clients in disputes arising out of interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, financial spread-betting, and other derivative instruments. Max also acts frequently in claims based on negligent investment advice and negligent advice in relation to tax avoidance schemes such as film finance schemes, EBTs and EFRBs.

Clients comment on the fact that “he is fluent in investment banking cases”, “a very numerate lawyer, who is better with numbers than pretty much any other barrister out there”. Chambers & Partners praises his considerable ability to deal effectively with both clients and the court.

Some of his ongoing and recent cases include:

• Max is currently instructed by a company which made significant investments of crypto and fiat currency in an algorithmic trading fund where fraud is suspected.
• Max is currently advising on potential claims by a substantial group of individual holders of defaulting unregulated minibonds.
• Max is currently instructed by various large groups of claimants with claims and potential claims against a number of financial institutions arising out of the payment of excessive and/or undisclosed commissions relating to the provision of products including motor finance and PPI insurance.
• Max is advising an individual client on potential claims in respect of very substantial “fiduciary deposits” which the client made with a Lebanese Bank through a Swiss agent. The client has been unable to recover his deposits following the imposition of exchange controls in Lebanon.
• Goldman Sachs v Carrion. Max acted for the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant in this dispute arising out of the sale of complex derivation instruments by the Claimant to Max’s client. The claim and counterclaim settled following disclosure.
• BGC Brokers LP & Ors v Tradition (UK) Limited/Martin Brokers Group Limited v Bell & Ors. Max acted for the Claimants in these related actions which settled shortly after the start of a 20-day trial. Both claims arose out of disputes between inter-dealer brokers in the City and involved claims for breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and breach of contract.
• Max recently acted for a client seeking very substantial damages against one of the high street banks for its role in a fraudulent scheme to pressure the client into selling his shares in a large private company owned and controlled by him at an undervalue.
• Max is advising in relation to a potential group action for breach of duty in relation to the FCA’s swaps redress scheme.
• Over the past few years Max has advised and acted for a large number of companies and individuals with claims against the banks arising out of tax avoidance schemes and swap transactions.
• ACS Scout v Ebullio & Anor, AC Scout v Ebullio & Ors (Commercial Court). Max acted for the Claimant in this large claim for damages for conspiracy to injure arising out of wrongful trading in Tin futures on the London Metal Exchange.
• Max acted for creditors of a failed investment bank in their claims to recover their investments.
• Dexia v Comune di Forli. Max acted for the Defendant (an Italian local authority) in this multimillion-dollar interest rate swap dispute. Max has been and is still involved in a number of other such claims.
• Cambridge Commodities Limited v Proedge. Max acted for the Claimant in this very substantial claim for damages for negligent investment advice in relation to and EBT and EFRBs. Max has been and is still involved in a number of other such claims.

Download Banking and financial services CV

Company law

Max is very frequently instructed in relation to shareholder disputes, 994 petitions, breach of warranty claims, derivative actions, shareholder agreements, share and business sale agreements and directors’ duties and negligence.

 Some of his ongoing and recent cases include:

• Dodson v Shield & Ors. Max now acts for the respondents to this unfair prejudice petition which arises out of a joint venture agreement for the purchase and exploitation of assembly lines for the production of car engines. Max was not instructed for the trial of the petition at which the petitioners succeeded. Having been instructed after the trial, Max made a successful application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and the appeal is to be heard in October 2023.
• Lyndou v Lazarichev & Ors. Max acts for the Claimant in this claim for damages arising out of the Claimant’s exclusion from a joint venture for the development and exploitation of a crypto-currency platform.
• Max is advising a member of an LLP through which a private equity business is operated in a dispute with another member of the LLP over the management and control of the private equity business. Max has recently advised on another LLP/private equity dispute giving rise to similar factual and legal issues.
• Waveley v Tech Mahindra. Max acted for the Defendants/Respondents to this claim for breach of a shareholders’ agreement (together with a related unfair prejudice petition) arising out of a joint venture agreement for the development of an IT business in the health sector in the UK. After three years of hard-fought litigation, the case settled in early 2023.
• Sonderwell v Diamond. Max acted for the Defendant to this claim for breach of warranty and other relief arising out of the Defendant’s sale of the shares in his company to the Claimant. The claim was settled in late 2022.
• Bonnier Publishing Limited & Ors v Styring & Ors. Max acted for the Defendants to this substantial claim for damages for breach of warranty arising out of an SPA pursuant to which the Defendants sold their shares in a private publishing company to the Claimants.
• Re TPD Investments. Max acted for one of the principal respondents to this section 994 Petition. After a 5-week trial before Asplin J, the Petition was dismissed as against Max’s client.

Download Company law CV

Civil fraud and asset recovery

Max is a “well regarded” civil fraud practitioner whose financial background makes him an ideal choice for complicated asset tracing claims. He is recommended in Chambers & Partners as a leading silk in the area of Civil Fraud which notes, “Max is commercial and great with numbers.”

Some of his recent work includes:

• Bhandal v HMRC. In this long-running dispute Max acts for the Claimant who is seeking to set aside judgement in an earlier trial on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. Max successfully opposed an application by HMRC in May 2023 to strike out the claim as an abuse of process and the claim continues.
• Janahan & Janahan v Croney & Ors. Max acts for the Claimants in this claim for damages for fraudulent misrepresentations which induced the Claimants to enter into a franchise agreement for the development of a gym business.
• Gerko v Seal & Ors. Max acted for the Defendants to this claim in unlawful means conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation arising out of the development of a valuable residential property owned by the Claimant. In December 2022, Max made a successful application to strike out the claim.
• The Kings litigation. Max has acted for the corporate parties in this complex, on-going litigation involving numerous related actions, including a claim in fraud/breach of fiduciary duty, an order for sale of shares and a section 994 petition.
• Max recently acted for a client seeking very substantial damages against one of the high street banks and other parties for their participation in a fraudulent scheme to pressure the client into selling his shares in a large private company owned and controlled by him at an undervalue.
• Max recently advised an individual claiming compensation from his bank for money fraudulently misappropriated from the client’s online bank account in respect of his claim against.
• Brainbox Digital Limited v Backbord Media & Ors. Max acted for the Claimant in this claim for damages for breach of contract and/or restitution arising out of a contract between the Claimant and the Defendants for the supply to the Claimant of specified digital services. It was the Claimants case that the Defendants had obtained payment under the contract by fraud, Max applied for and obtained a without notice freezing and proprietary injunction. Permission to enforce these orders out of the jurisdiction was obtained and after further interlocutory skirmishing (including an application for security for costs and to fortify the Claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages).
• Eminent Energy v Daxin Baltic. Max acted for the Claimant in this Commercial Court claim for damages and declarations arising out of the supply of Naphtha to the Claimant by the Defendant. The Defendant alleged fraud and conspiracy. Max obtained an urgent without notice injunction to prevent the Defendant from disposing of a quantity of Naphtha held at a storage facility in Latvia.
• Nextam v Mughal. Max acted for the Claimant in his claim for breach of fiduciary duty/fraud against a former director. Max obtained a number of urgent interlocutory orders (including freezing and disclosure orders) before obtaining judgment for about £2 million. Max also represented the Claimant in its application to commit the Defendant to prison for contempt of Court. Following a 4-day hearing, Whipple J committed the Defendant to prison.
• In the matter of African Safari Club Limited (in liquidation). Max acted for the liquidators in this claim against ex-directors for fraud/breach of fiduciary duty and compensation under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• ICF v Mistry. Max acted for the Claimant in this claim for damages/equitable compensation against an ex-director of the claimant company. Max obtained a freezing injunction on very short notice in March 2016.
• African Land Ltd v Haddow & others. Max acted for the Claimant in this high-value action for fraud and breach of contract in relation to investment in plots of land in Sierra Leone. Max obtained a number of interlocutory orders on behalf of the Claimant including freezing injunction prior to the settlement of the case.

Download Civil fraud and asset recovery CV

International arbitration

Max has experience both of acting as counsel in arbitrations under various different rules and also dealing with applications in the courts in support of arbitration proceedings and to enforce arbitration awards.

Some of his recent cases include:

• A dispute as to the management and control of a private equity business run through an LLP subject to an LLP Agreement containing an arbitration clause.
• An LCIA arbitration in which Max acted for the Claimant seeking to set aside an agreement for the sale and purchase of a substantial group of companies.
• An LME arbitration in which Max acted for the Claimant, seeking to recover damages arising out of the supply of zinc in India.
• A successful application to the Commercial Court under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for an injunction to prevent the respondent from terminating the applicant’s access to the respondent’s telecommunications network.
• A number of claims for enforcement in the Commercial Court of arbitration awards made by the Beth Din.
• An ICC arbitration in which Max acted for the Respondents to a claim for damages for breach of a settlement agreement arising out of a shareholder dispute.
• ICC arbitration in which Max acted for the Claimant in his claim for damages for breach of a contract for the hire of a luxury yacht in the Caribbean.
• ICC arbitration in which Max acted for the Claimant in his claim for damages for breach of a commission agreement in respect of the sale of an oil production platform in Libya.

Download International arbitration CV

Insolvency

Max deals with a variety of insolvency related issues usually involving questions of asset recovery and breach of fiduciary duty.

Some of his recent work includes:

• In the matter of African Safari Club Limited (in liquidation). Max acted for the liquidators in this claim against ex-directors for fraud/breach of fiduciary duty and compensation under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Max recently acted for creditors of a failed investment bank in their claims to recover their investments.
• Re Hole in One Limited (in liquidation). Max acted for the liquidators of Hole in One in relation to a number of claims for recovery of assets. As well as tracing claims, there were also claims for breaches of fiduciary duty.
• Re: TAG Capital Ventures Limited & Ors. Max acted for creditors applying for the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator due to fraudulent misappropriation of funds and, immediately upon appointment, acted for the Provisional Liquidator in applying for a freezing injunction against an ex-director.
• James Earp v Thomas McCabe & Ors. Max acted for the liquidators of a telecommunications company. The claim was for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of a fraud perpetrated by the company whilst under the control of the respondents. The claim settled following the respondents’ unsuccessful application to discharge worldwide freezing injunctions obtained by Max on behalf of the Liquidators.

Download Insolvency CV