ARTICLE
11 May 2026

Commercial Court Decision Confirms Corporate Dishonesty Cannot Be Assembled From The Innocent States Of Mind Of Different Executives

KL
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP

Contributor

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is a world-leading global law firm, where our ambition is to help you achieve your goals. Exceptional client service and the pursuit of excellence are at our core. We invest in and care about our client relationships, which is why so many are longstanding. We enjoy breaking new ground, as we have for over 170 years. As a fully integrated transatlantic and transpacific firm, we are where you need us to be. Our footprint is extensive and committed across the world’s largest markets, key financial centres and major growth hubs. At our best tackling complexity and navigating change, we work alongside you on demanding litigation, exacting regulatory work and complex public and private market transactions. We are recognised as leading in these areas. We are immersed in the sectors and challenges that impact you. We are recognised as standing apart in energy, infrastructure and resources. And we’re focused on areas of growth that affect every business across the world.
The Commercial Court has dismissed a multi-million-pound fraud claim relating to the sale of the Johnson Matthey Health Business...
United Kingdom Criminal Law
Neil Blake’s articles from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP are most popular:
  • with Inhouse Counsel
  • with readers working within the Technology industries

The Commercial Court has dismissed a multi-million-pound fraud claim relating to the sale of the Johnson Matthey Health Business, in which the buyer alleged that the sellers were in fraudulent breach of certain warranties contained within the SPA: Veranova Bidco LP v Johnson Matthey Plc [2026] EWHC 1021 (Comm)

In many modern M&A transactions, the buyer takes out warranty and indemnity ("W&I") insurance and, in return, waives its right to bring warranty claims against the seller – except to the extent that those claims arise from the seller's fraud or wilful misconduct. The deal is straightforward in theory: the buyer's warranty risk is transferred to an insurer for most purposes, and the seller is exposed only for deliberate wrongdoing.

The present judgment demonstrates how formidable a hurdle the fraud exception can be. Despite finding that a warranty had been breached without being adequately qualified by disclosure, the court dismissed the claim in its entirety: the terms of the SPA precluded any claim in negligence or for simple breach of contract, and the buyer's fraud claim (pursued with what the court described as "relentless aggression") was found to be "implausible, improbable and wholly unsupported by the evidence".

The judgment contains important guidance on the test for fraud in the context of a breach of warranty claim: it is not possible to "aggregate" knowledge of facts and knowledge of falsity in a corporate entity where such knowledge is held by different individuals. The court held that a single, identifiable individual must have known the relevant facts, known enough about the warranty to appreciate that those facts were material to it, and known (or been reckless as to whether) the warranty was false. 

The decision is a stark illustration of the risk run by a buyer whose only route to a successful warranty claim is by invoking the fraud exception.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More