Businessman claims associates boasted of US government deal
nificant investment opportunity” involving a PPE transaction that a contact of Paterson’s had entered into with the US Depar tment of Defense. McLeish learned funding was needed to overcome US regulatory issues so the money could be released and moved to Obree Global in Dubai. He was then asked to provide the multi- million dollar loan in return for a 15 per cent stake in Obree with the prospect of other contracts. In late January McLeish claimed he was sent a video by Paterson with an online statement for a bank account showing the frozen PPE money held by the law firm.
He is now claiming Shute and Paterson either knew the claims they made over the frozen cash were untrue or had no proof they were.
At the same court Shute has lodged a counter-claim for £150,000 he said he is due from McLeish for legal services in connection with his personal affairs and “ongoing divorce proceedings.” Shute, who is believed to be based in Hong Kong, has also asked that any damages claim against him be “sisted” or stopped.
He says the £ 5million dispute should be settled by arbitration under a previous Shareholder’s Agreement.
In his judgment of April 25, Lord Braid said of McLeish’s claim: “It is not in dispute the $2.4billion never existed although the first defender (Shute) strenuously denies he was party to any fraud.” He then added: “The first defender has no entitlement to have the action sisted. “The pursuer (McLeish) is entitled to make progress with the action and it would not be appropriate to sist it.”
Neither Shute or Paterson could be contacted for comment. McLeish did not respond to emails and calls from the Sunday Mail.