The allegations against Vista Global Chairman Thomas Flohr did not name the private jet company. Frontiers plans to launch a new claim.
The English High Court dismissed claims by a former business partner of Thomas Flohr, the founder and chairman of Vista Global.
The allegations related to a business venture predating VistaJet dating back over two decades.
The decision was handed down in a 59-page judgment earlier today (a copy is included at the end).
The claimant is Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership.
Vista Global was not a party to any of the allegations.
However, lawyers representing Frontiers tell Private Jet Card Comparisons they will be “issuing a new claim in the High Court in London seeking damages and recovery of its losses against Mr. Flohr on the grounds of his alleged dishonesty and fraudulent conduct.”
In addition to VistaJet, Vista Global also owns broker XO.
In a press release, Flohr commented, “I am extremely pleased that the High Court’s Summary Judgement completely exonerated me and that the claims brought against me were entirely without merit.”
He added, “This ruling puts an end to a long-term smear campaign designed solely to harm my personal reputation and detract from the great achievements of the amazing and hardworking people at Vista.”
Flohr continued, “I want to thank my friends, family, and business partners, who saw through these baseless allegations and adverse media campaigns.”
He concluded, “These vexatious attempts to damage the reputation of me and Vista remain subject to separate judicial determination.”
The press release added Flohr’s legal teams will “be pursuing full recovery of costs against those involved.”
According to a statement from Vista Global, “The English High Court gave judgment in favor of Thomas Flohr’s summary judgment/strike-out application and dismissed the baseless claims brought against him by Frontiers Capital General Partner Limited, a company controlled by Tim Horlick.”
It added, “Significantly, today’s judgment also rejects Frontiers Capital’s frivolous attempt to amend its claim to include fabricated allegations of fraud.”
The action was in a preliminary stage.
Per Legal Vision, here is what a strike-out means:
When a court issues a strike-out order, it means that the court deletes part of or the whole statement of the case. This means that the party involved cannot rely on it as evidence. If a strike-out order refers to the entire statement, it means that the litigation will not proceed any further. This is because the court will likely, in these circumstances, give the judgment to the opposing commercial party.
A summary judgment has a similar impact on commercial litigation as a strike-out order. It is a procedure the court uses to impose a judgment on one of the commercial parties for the entire claim or for specific issues.
A court may issue a summary judgment where a party’s argument or issue within it seems like it has no chance of success, or the court cannot see a good enough reason for the commercial trial to go ahead.
A summary judgment becomes a viable option only in cases where there are no complicated factual or legal issues to be resolved as part of the commercial litigation. Where there are, there may need to be a trial.
The Khan Partnership, which represented Frontiers (FCILP), provided Private Jet Card Comparisons with the following statement:
- In the Court’s decision handed down today, Mr. Flohr was successful in obtaining reverse summary judgment against FCILP’s claims, primarily on one of five grounds. This was based on a technical limitation defense by Mr. Flohr that FCILP should have brought its claim sooner. There has been no adjudication of the merits of the substantive claim brought by FCILP, except as relates to a limitation defense by Mr. Flohr of delay on the part of FCILP bringing its claims and that the Court struck out one ground of claim that Mr. Flohr had deliberately frustrated FCILP’s business.
- Mr. Flohr was unsuccessful in three of the five grounds that he advanced to strike out FCILP’s claim and the Court made clear it would not grant summary judgment against FCILP on each of those three grounds.
- The limitation point the Court relied upon was based on a point of law which is already subject to an appeal to the English Supreme Court in the case of Bilta (UK) Ltd v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. The High Court is, therefore, likely to extend the time for FCILP to bring an appeal against the decision on the limitation ground, pending outcome of the Supreme Court decision in Bilta, which, if the Appellant in that case is successful, is likely to remove or significantly amend the technical ground that the Court has relied on against FCILP to strike out its claim on the grounds of limitation. Therefore, FCILP will be carefully considering an appeal on the application of the law of limitation to this case after the Supreme Court hands down its decision on Bilta.
- FCILP notes the Court’s careful observations at paragraph 137 of today’s Judgment in which the Court makes clear FCILP’s claim for fraud and dishonesty by Mr. Flohr was ‘coherent and properly particularised’ and that ‘if all the primary facts pleaded under the heading of particulars of fraud were proven, a trial judge could conclude that they were more consistent with an inference of fraud than with honest conduct.’
In light of the Court’s findings that the fraud claim advanced by FCILP against Mr. Flohr was appropriately pleaded and properly presented, and given the Court’s observations that the fraud FCILP alleged was committed against it by Mr. Flohr’s dishonesty was likely not discovered until 2022, a new and separate claim by FCILP against Mr. Flohr would not be subject to a successful limitation defense.
FCILP notes that whilst Mr. Flohr has successfully argued one limitation-based defence to the current claim proceeding, FCILP will now be preparing and issuing a new and separate claim against Mr. Flohr alleging dishonest conduct in relation to his dealings with FCILP.
FCILP will therefore be issuing a new claim in the High Court in London seeking damages and recovery of its losses against Mr. Flohr on the grounds of his alleged dishonesty and fraudulent conduct against FCILP.
Court-protected documents from the Frontiers case are part of a separate lawsuit Vista Global filed last year in Malta against a rival charter operator.
The allegations, which were denied, were first reported in part in March 2024 by Bloomberg.
Vista Global’s finances have been under scrutiny since a May 2023 report by the Financial Times.
Flohr attributed the company’s increased debt to acquisitions of operators, brokers, and new jets designed to generate growth.
Earlier this month, Vista Global signed a definitive agreement for a $600 million equity raise.
Singapore-based RRJ Capital is leading the investment.
VistaJet offers its jet card clients the most global and most flexible guaranteed available, fixed-rate jet card solution.
Its entry-level jet card begins at just 25 hours per year.
VistaJet pitches it as an alternative between full and fractional ownership, which have higher upfront costs and a longer-term commitment, and ad hoc charter bookings, which have stricter cancellation policies and other variables.
However, jet card holders would be unsecured creditors if the company failed.
READ: Comparing the 5 ways to fly by private jet
Vista Global’s revenue was $2.59 billion in 2023, up from $2.39 billion in 2022.
Through Q3 2024, It had revenues of $2.1 billion.
Since acquiring XOJet in 2018, Vista Global has tripled its fleet.
It has grown to be the third-largest charter/fractional operator in the U.S., private aviation’s most important market.
It trails only NetJets and Flexjet.
DOWNLOAD: Court Order Frontiers Capital v Thomas Flohr
(Editor’s note: Post-publication, we added an explanation of UK law regarding strike-out and summary judgment stages of legal actions.)
Find the perfect solution for your private aviation needs
Save Time. Buy Confidently.
Receive an apples-to-apples comparison of programs that meet your needs from more than 500 jet card and fractional options covering 65 points of differentiation and over 40,000 data points.
