Re Thyssen-Bornemisza Continuity Trust

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2002
• Date: 13 February 2002
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

N M Wade-Miller, J

BETWEEN:

(1) Thybo Trustees Limited

(2) Favorita Holding Limited

Plaintiffs

-and-

(1) Baron Georg Henrich Alfred Gabor Thyssen-Bornemisza De Kaszon

(2) Francesca Anna Von Harsburg-Lothringen, Archduchess of Austria

(3) Baron Lorne Johannes Thyssen-Bornemisza De Kaszon

(4) Baron Wilfried Alexander August Gabor Thyssen-Bornemisza De Kaszon

(5) Karl Thomas Robert Maria Franziskus Georg Bahnam Von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria

(6) Eleonore Maria Del Pilar Iona Christina Jelena Von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduchess of Austria (by the Ninth Defendant, her guardian ad litem)

(7) Ferdinand Zvonimir Maria Balthus Keith Michael Otto Antal Bahnam Von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria (by the Ninth Defendant, his guardian ad litem)

(8) Gloria Maria Bogdana Paloma Regina Fiona Gabriela Von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduchess of Austria (by the Ninth Defendant, her guardian ad litem)

(9) Paul Georg Maria Joseph Dominikus Von Habsburg-Lothringen, Ambassador of The Republic of Hungary

Defendants

DECISION

On Wednesday February 13^th 2002 the Court heard submission in respect of an Application by the Plaintiffs (Thybo Trustees Limited and Favorita Holding Limited) for the Court's approval of the Plaintiffs' decision to compromise litigation brought against the Plaintiffs by one of the Settlors of the Continuity Trust to have the trust set aside. Because the decision is particularly momentous the Trustees wish to obtain the blessing of the Court for this action which is within their powers.

The Defendants, except the fourth ‘Alexander’ are represented by Counsel.

Let me say that the Court is indebted to Mr. Michael Driscoll who has spent a day taking the Court through his written submission and the accompanying lengthy affidavits and exhibits.

After hearing submissions the Court gave a short oral decision. It now formalizes that decision.

The background and history of this litigation is a matter of record. It is clear from a comprehensive reading of the documents before the Court that the majority of the adult beneficiaries (except Alexander) and the guardian ad litem of the minor, unborn and unascertained beneficiaries of the compromise, after taking their own independent advice, support the compromise and the Trustees' application.

Insofar as Alexander is concerned, the Court is satisfied that the hearing should proceed in his absence. He has been given adequate opportunity to be...