Melbourne-based hard assets investment manager Merricks Capital has won undertakings from its ex-managing director and two former employees who defected to an investment boutique run by financial commentator Peter Switzer and his son Marty.
In interlocutory orders handed down in the Federal Court on Thursday, former Merricks Capital managing director for investments Andew Torrington agreed not to poach clients or investors he dealt with in his last 12 months at the Melbourne asset manager.
Torrington also agreed not be involved in offering or providing loans over $20 million to individuals in his new role at Woodbridge Capital and not to disclose or reproduce any documents he downloaded from Merricks Capital’s IT systems in October last year.
Former Merricks Capital employees Sam Van Praag and Matthew Samuels, who are also named in the lawsuit, made the same undertakings to the court.
Merricks filed court proceedings on June 2, seeking interlocutory orders blocking Torrington from poaching its clients and serving in his current roles of managing director and CIO at Woodbridge Capital Pty, an investment manager and non-back lender specialising in commercial real estate that is part of Associate Global Partners.
AGP is helmed by Marty Switzer, who serves as managing director alongside his father Peter, who is a non-executive director. Marty Switzer is also CEO of ASX-listed fund manager Contango Asset Management Limited, which is also named as a respondent in the lawsuit.
Torrington and fellow commercial real estate specialists Van Praag and Samuels made the jump from Merricks last year, with Torrington starting at Woodbridge six months ago and Van Praag and Samuels commencing in their roles as executive directors two months ago, according to their LinkedIn profiles.
The lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief against Torrington, Van Praag, Samuels, Australian Global Partners and Contango for allegedly violating the prohibitions against misleading and deceptive conduct contained in the ASIC Act and/or the Corporations Act and the Australian Consumer Law.
The defendants are also accused of violating their contractual and equitable obligations of confidence and engaging in copyright infringement.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges Torrington, Van Praag and Samuels breached the non-solicitation and non-compete obligations contained in their employment agreements.
Merricks wants the court to restrain Torrington from working at Woodbridge until October 2022 and to bar Van Praag and Samuels being employed at Woodbridge until March 2023.
The court has also been asked to bar the trio from using any documents belonging to or relating to Merricks obtained during the course of their employment with Merricks while the lawsuit is on foot. This includes allegedly confidential information contained in downloaded files, USB files and a case study, which Merricks wants the court to order Torrington or Woodbridge to hand over.
Merricks is represented by Arnold Bloch Leibler.
The case is Merricks Capital Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Andrew Torrington & Ors.
Copyright Lawyerly Media. Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of this article is prohibited.
A reprint licence is required to reproduce or distribute this article. Contact Us for a reprint licence.