Bio
Marcus specialises in cross-border trust and insolvency disputes, with a practice spanning the commercial courts of the Cayman Islands, the BVI and England at all levels. He joined Appleby in January 2025, having spent the previous 17 years in a leading commercial chancery chambers in London. Since joining, he has appeared on the Cayman side of a Hong Kong-Cayman dual creditors’ scheme of arrangement for Fantasia Holdings — securing court sanction for a USD 6.6 billion debt write-down — acted across a range of trust administration matters, and developed a civil litigation and fraud practice with a growing focus on cryptocurrency and crypto-token disputes.
His appellate practice has produced two landmark decisions, each repeatedly cited by senior courts throughout the common law world. In Schmidt v. Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] UKPC 26, he was co-counsel for the successful appellant before the Privy Council in one of the most influential trusts cases of the last quarter-century. In Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, he was sole counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in the leading authority on cross-border insolvency enforcement — a decision that directly shaped the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (2018).
Before London, Marcus headed his chambers’ Geneva office for six years and spent five years at one of Switzerland’s most prestigious law firms, advising high net worth clients on international estate planning and trust litigation.
His international reach extends across the USA, Switzerland, the Channel Islands, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, the DIFC and beyond. He has appeared in ICC, LCIA and CAS arbitrations, and acted for HMRC in negotiating the Memorandum of Understanding with Liechtenstein that underpinned the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, through which over 6,400 individuals and companies regularised their tax affairs, drawing an estimated £5 billion of previously concealed assets back into compliance.
Bio
Marcus specialises in cross-border trust and insolvency disputes, with a practice spanning the commercial courts of the Cayman Islands, the BVI and England at all levels. He joined Appleby in January 2025, having spent the previous 17 years in a leading commercial chancery chambers in London. Since joining, he has appeared on the Cayman side of a Hong Kong-Cayman dual creditors’ scheme of arrangement for Fantasia Holdings — securing court sanction for a USD 6.6 billion debt write-down — acted across a range of trust administration matters, and developed a civil litigation and fraud practice with a growing focus on cryptocurrency and crypto-token disputes.
His appellate practice has produced two landmark decisions, each repeatedly cited by senior courts throughout the common law world. In Schmidt v. Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] UKPC 26, he was co-counsel for the successful appellant before the Privy Council in one of the most influential trusts cases of the last quarter-century. In Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, he was sole counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in the leading authority on cross-border insolvency enforcement — a decision that directly shaped the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (2018).
Before London, Marcus headed his chambers’ Geneva office for six years and spent five years at one of Switzerland’s most prestigious law firms, advising high net worth clients on international estate planning and trust litigation.
His international reach extends across the USA, Switzerland, the Channel Islands, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, the DIFC and beyond. He has appeared in ICC, LCIA and CAS arbitrations, and acted for HMRC in negotiating the Memorandum of Understanding with Liechtenstein that underpinned the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, through which over 6,400 individuals and companies regularised their tax affairs, drawing an estimated £5 billion of previously concealed assets back into compliance.
Work Highlights
Vadim Schmidt v. Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] UKPC 26 (Privy Council) Marcus was co-counsel for the successful appellant in this case, one of the most influential trusts decisions of the last quarter-century. The Privy Council held that a beneficiary’s right to seek disclosure of trust documents is an aspect of the court’s inherent supervisory jurisdiction — not a property right contingent on a vested interest — establishing the case as the modern starting point for considering the court’s jurisdiction to oversee and, where necessary, intervene in the administration of trusts. The principle is now cited routinely in England, the offshore jurisdictions, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Marcus appeared as junior counsel to Alan Steinfeld QC.
Eurofinance v. Rubin [2012] UKSC 46 (Supreme Court) Marcus appeared as sole counsel for the successful appellants at first instance, in the Court of Appeal and before the UK Supreme Court, which described the case as raising issues of the first importance in private international law. The trust law dimension was entirely without precedent: the insolvency proceedings arose from the collapse of an English law trust whose beneficiaries had initiated Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States. The Supreme Court held that recognition of foreign office-holders under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations confers no right to enforce foreign judgments beyond the established common law rules — a decision of lasting importance for trustees and beneficiaries facing cross-border enforcement that directly precipitated the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (2018).
Global Distressed Alpha Fund v. PT Bakrie Investindo [2011] EWHC 256 (Comm) Marcus appeared for the successful claimant. The High Court held that the discharge of the defendant’s guarantee obligations under Indonesian law was of no effect in England, reaffirming the principle in Antony Gibbs & Sons v. La Société Industrielle that a foreign insolvency judgment will not, of itself, abrogate a contractual obligation governed by English law.
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) [2008] EWHC 2869 (Ch) Marcus acted for Lehman clients holding a portfolio of bonds under a prime brokerage account against which no credit had been drawn. The bank had deployed those bonds as collateral for its own general debts. The case required careful analysis of the nature of property held within a prime brokerage fund — where the bank acts simultaneously as trustee, mortgagee and pledgee — and ultimately the clients were recognised as secured creditors when Briggs J approved the administrator’s distribution plan.
Vendort Traders Inc v. Evrostroy Grupp LLC [2016] UKPC 15 (Privy Council) Marcus appeared at first instance, in the BVI Court of Appeal and before the Privy Council in this appeal from the BVI. The Board upheld a ruling that a statutory demand should not be set aside where new evidence was not potentially decisive of liability under a share purchase agreement, and confirmed that an arbitration award gives rise to an enforceable debt without requiring a separate enforcement order under the BVI Arbitration Ordinance.
PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov & others [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 2437 Marcus appeared for one of four successful defendants in this 42-day fraud trial concerning the alleged diversion of payments made by a Ukrainian refinery for oil delivered by a Russian oil company. The trial involved cross-examination of multiple witnesses in Ukrainian and Russian through simultaneous interpreters. A subsidiary judgment confirmed that legal advice privilege extends to all foreign lawyers irrespective of the professional standards or regulations applicable in their home jurisdiction.
Al Sadik v. Investcorp Bank [2018] UKPC 15 (Privy Council) Marcus appeared at trial in the Cayman Islands, in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and before the Privy Council, which construed a share purchase agreement between an investor and his investment manager as authorising leveraged investments in a hedge fund, and upheld the characterisation of a transfer to a special purpose vehicle as an administrative rather than an investment step.
A v B [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) A landmark authority establishing that where proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, the costs of obtaining a stay and setting aside service out of the jurisdiction should ordinarily be awarded on an indemnity basis.
United Capital Corporation v. Bender 2006 JLR 269 (Jersey Court of Appeal) Marcus acted for hedge fund managers defending a third-party claim to a share of substantial trading profits, successfully challenging jurisdiction on grounds of forum non conveniens.
In re a Scottish Estate (Chancery Division, England & Wales) Marcus acted for Scottish executors pursuing a claim against the deceased’s former Swiss lawyer, alleged to hold valuable undisclosed investments on trust for the estate. The claim rested on two alternative grounds: undue influence in procuring a deed of gift, or that the deed was a sham designed to deceive Swiss banks into misidentifying the lawyer as the ultimate beneficial owner and thereby shield the assets from UK tax reporting obligations. The matter was resolved by negotiated settlement with both the defendant and HMRC.
Re Omar Family Trust (Grand Court, Cayman Islands) Marcus acted in proceedings in which, with the cooperation of the trustees, orders were obtained replacing the directors of companies held within the trust structure. The purpose was to enable those companies to obtain court orders in Texas granting access to records held by a Houston entity managing valuable commercial real estate. The strategy proved decisive: the matter settled on terms that unwound the trust entirely in the claimants’ favour.
Ann Maxine Patton v. Alvarez Jimenez de Pass (Supreme Court of the Bahamas, unreported) Marcus acted in support of Bahamas counsel for the successful plaintiff, who obtained orders removing the trustee and protector of a Bahamas law trust and appointing replacements. The case formed a significant milestone in an international litigation campaign through which the plaintiff has sought to recover her late husband’s assets — diverted by his trustees for their own benefit — both for his estate and from the wider trust structure.
In re a Trust (BVI High Court, unreported) Marcus appeared on a construction summons concerning whether a condition subsequent had been satisfied so as to release the trustees from an indemnity obligation and discharge their duty to retain a portion of trust assets as security. The application was one of several in which Marcus appeared during the complex unwinding of a long-standing multi-party settlement relating to the dissolution of a partnership with international assets.
Labrouche v. Frey [2012] EWCA Civ 881; [2016] EWHC 268 (Ch) Marcus acted for the claimant throughout this breach of trust claim, which concerned whether the founder’s rights in a Liechtenstein Anstalt were held on the trusts of an English law will. When the first instance judge dismissed the claim without hearing oral argument, Marcus successfully appealed, with the Court of Appeal overturning the decision and remitting the matter for rehearing. Marcus appeared at the subsequent five-day Chancery Division hearing, where the strike-out application was dismissed, and again at the six-week trial on the substantive merits.
Marlwood Commercial Inc v. Kozeny [2007] EWHC 950 (Comm) Marcus appeared on an application to freeze trust assets under the Chabra jurisdiction, ancillary to a fraud claim against Viktor Kozeny arising from an alleged scheme to defraud investors in a project to acquire a significant shareholding in Azerbaijan’s oil industry upon privatisation. The jurisdictional basis was that Mr Kozeny exercised substantive control over the trust property in question.
Frabran Holdings v. Daventree Trustees (Grand Court, Cayman Islands) Marcus acted for the applicant and secured two orders: local recognition of a receiver over a unit trust fund appointed by the Cyprus court, and a proprietary freezing injunction over trust assets held by or to the order of the defendants. A subsequent challenge to the freezing order was dismissed and the injunction upheld (FSD 112 of 2023, 17 January 2024).
Arbitration Marcus has appeared in a range of institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. His LCIA matters have included a software supply breach of contract claim and a debt recovery dispute involving allegations of forgery and fraud arising from a contest for control of a valuable Ukrainian agribusiness. His ICC matters have included disputes concerning a joint venture to distribute specialised equipment to oil companies in the UAE, cargo delivery disputes involving Libya, Turkey, Ukraine and Italy, and a doping appeal and expert commission before the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Olympic Games.
Vadim Schmidt v. Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] UKPC 26 (Privy Council) Marcus was co-counsel for the successful appellant in this case, one of the most influential trusts decisions of the last quarter-century. The Privy Council held that a beneficiary’s right to seek disclosure of trust documents is an aspect of the court’s inherent supervisory jurisdiction — not a property right contingent on a vested interest — establishing the case as the modern starting point for considering the court’s jurisdiction to oversee and, where necessary, intervene in the administration of trusts. The principle is now cited routinely in England, the offshore jurisdictions, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Marcus appeared as junior counsel to Alan Steinfeld QC.
Eurofinance v. Rubin [2012] UKSC 46 (Supreme Court) Marcus appeared as sole counsel for the successful appellants at first instance, in the Court of Appeal and before the UK Supreme Court, which described the case as raising issues of the first importance in private international law. The trust law dimension was entirely without precedent: the insolvency proceedings arose from the collapse of an English law trust whose beneficiaries had initiated Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States. The Supreme Court held that recognition of foreign office-holders under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations confers no right to enforce foreign judgments beyond the established common law rules — a decision of lasting importance for trustees and beneficiaries facing cross-border enforcement that directly precipitated the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (2018).
Global Distressed Alpha Fund v. PT Bakrie Investindo [2011] EWHC 256 (Comm) Marcus appeared for the successful claimant. The High Court held that the discharge of the defendant’s guarantee obligations under Indonesian law was of no effect in England, reaffirming the principle in Antony Gibbs & Sons v. La Société Industrielle that a foreign insolvency judgment will not, of itself, abrogate a contractual obligation governed by English law.
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) [2008] EWHC 2869 (Ch) Marcus acted for Lehman clients holding a portfolio of bonds under a prime brokerage account against which no credit had been drawn. The bank had deployed those bonds as collateral for its own general debts. The case required careful analysis of the nature of property held within a prime brokerage fund — where the bank acts simultaneously as trustee, mortgagee and pledgee — and ultimately the clients were recognised as secured creditors when Briggs J approved the administrator’s distribution plan.
Vendort Traders Inc v. Evrostroy Grupp LLC [2016] UKPC 15 (Privy Council) Marcus appeared at first instance, in the BVI Court of Appeal and before the Privy Council in this appeal from the BVI. The Board upheld a ruling that a statutory demand should not be set aside where new evidence was not potentially decisive of liability under a share purchase agreement, and confirmed that an arbitration award gives rise to an enforceable debt without requiring a separate enforcement order under the BVI Arbitration Ordinance.
PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov & others [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 2437 Marcus appeared for one of four successful defendants in this 42-day fraud trial concerning the alleged diversion of payments made by a Ukrainian refinery for oil delivered by a Russian oil company. The trial involved cross-examination of multiple witnesses in Ukrainian and Russian through simultaneous interpreters. A subsidiary judgment confirmed that legal advice privilege extends to all foreign lawyers irrespective of the professional standards or regulations applicable in their home jurisdiction.
Al Sadik v. Investcorp Bank [2018] UKPC 15 (Privy Council) Marcus appeared at trial in the Cayman Islands, in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and before the Privy Council, which construed a share purchase agreement between an investor and his investment manager as authorising leveraged investments in a hedge fund, and upheld the characterisation of a transfer to a special purpose vehicle as an administrative rather than an investment step.
A v B [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) A landmark authority establishing that where proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, the costs of obtaining a stay and setting aside service out of the jurisdiction should ordinarily be awarded on an indemnity basis.
United Capital Corporation v. Bender 2006 JLR 269 (Jersey Court of Appeal) Marcus acted for hedge fund managers defending a third-party claim to a share of substantial trading profits, successfully challenging jurisdiction on grounds of forum non conveniens.
In re a Scottish Estate (Chancery Division, England & Wales) Marcus acted for Scottish executors pursuing a claim against the deceased’s former Swiss lawyer, alleged to hold valuable undisclosed investments on trust for the estate. The claim rested on two alternative grounds: undue influence in procuring a deed of gift, or that the deed was a sham designed to deceive Swiss banks into misidentifying the lawyer as the ultimate beneficial owner and thereby shield the assets from UK tax reporting obligations. The matter was resolved by negotiated settlement with both the defendant and HMRC.
Re Omar Family Trust (Grand Court, Cayman Islands) Marcus acted in proceedings in which, with the cooperation of the trustees, orders were obtained replacing the directors of companies held within the trust structure. The purpose was to enable those companies to obtain court orders in Texas granting access to records held by a Houston entity managing valuable commercial real estate. The strategy proved decisive: the matter settled on terms that unwound the trust entirely in the claimants’ favour.
Ann Maxine Patton v. Alvarez Jimenez de Pass (Supreme Court of the Bahamas, unreported) Marcus acted in support of Bahamas counsel for the successful plaintiff, who obtained orders removing the trustee and protector of a Bahamas law trust and appointing replacements. The case formed a significant milestone in an international litigation campaign through which the plaintiff has sought to recover her late husband’s assets — diverted by his trustees for their own benefit — both for his estate and from the wider trust structure.
In re a Trust (BVI High Court, unreported) Marcus appeared on a construction summons concerning whether a condition subsequent had been satisfied so as to release the trustees from an indemnity obligation and discharge their duty to retain a portion of trust assets as security. The application was one of several in which Marcus appeared during the complex unwinding of a long-standing multi-party settlement relating to the dissolution of a partnership with international assets.
Labrouche v. Frey [2012] EWCA Civ 881; [2016] EWHC 268 (Ch) Marcus acted for the claimant throughout this breach of trust claim, which concerned whether the founder’s rights in a Liechtenstein Anstalt were held on the trusts of an English law will. When the first instance judge dismissed the claim without hearing oral argument, Marcus successfully appealed, with the Court of Appeal overturning the decision and remitting the matter for rehearing. Marcus appeared at the subsequent five-day Chancery Division hearing, where the strike-out application was dismissed, and again at the six-week trial on the substantive merits.
Marlwood Commercial Inc v. Kozeny [2007] EWHC 950 (Comm) Marcus appeared on an application to freeze trust assets under the Chabra jurisdiction, ancillary to a fraud claim against Viktor Kozeny arising from an alleged scheme to defraud investors in a project to acquire a significant shareholding in Azerbaijan’s oil industry upon privatisation. The jurisdictional basis was that Mr Kozeny exercised substantive control over the trust property in question.
Frabran Holdings v. Daventree Trustees (Grand Court, Cayman Islands) Marcus acted for the applicant and secured two orders: local recognition of a receiver over a unit trust fund appointed by the Cyprus court, and a proprietary freezing injunction over trust assets held by or to the order of the defendants. A subsequent challenge to the freezing order was dismissed and the injunction upheld (FSD 112 of 2023, 17 January 2024).
Arbitration Marcus has appeared in a range of institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. His LCIA matters have included a software supply breach of contract claim and a debt recovery dispute involving allegations of forgery and fraud arising from a contest for control of a valuable Ukrainian agribusiness. His ICC matters have included disputes concerning a joint venture to distribute specialised equipment to oil companies in the UAE, cargo delivery disputes involving Libya, Turkey, Ukraine and Italy, and a doping appeal and expert commission before the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Olympic Games.
Recognition
Trusts
“Marcus Staff is a man with long experience of handling trusts-related work. He demonstrated his credentials in the trusts sphere by appearing in Schmidt v Rosewood Trustees, the leading trusts case heard in the Privy Council in the last 20 years.” “Hugely impressive and a delight to work with.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“A very clever litigator, who’s thorough and hard-working. He’s thinks very hard about trusts law and writes very well on the subject too.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
“A man with a remarkable intellect and great breadth of knowledge, who is excellent at communication and recognising the interrelation of very complex matters.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“A very clever guy who uses his intelligence in a practical way.” (2022 – UK and Global)
“He is intelligent, innovative and forceful.” (2021 – UK and Global)
“Marcus is frequently instructed in contentious trust disputes, handling such issues as the removal of trustees and tax-related matters. He has also been involved in matters relating to investment funds and civil fraud.”
“Marcus Staff provided clear and concise advice in technically tricky cases.” “He is knowledgeable, user-friendly and client-focused.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“He has a great international trusts practice.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
“Very easy to work with and a proficient communicator, very knowledgeable in the trusts sector.” (Legal 500 2022)
“He is a barrister of the highest calibre. He is incredibly detailed, leaves no stone unturned and user friendly.” (Legal 500 2021)
“He is extremely thorough and detailed. He leaves no stone unturned. Especially good on matters connected with Switzerland and Swiss law. A really top senior junior who solicitors look forward to working with again soon.” (Legal 500 2023)
“He is engaged, to the point, highly intelligent, innovative, industrious and a team player.” (Legal 500 2022)
“Has good experience and sufficient flexibility when dealing with difficult clients.” (Legal 500 2021)
Trusts
“Marcus Staff is a man with long experience of handling trusts-related work. He demonstrated his credentials in the trusts sphere by appearing in Schmidt v Rosewood Trustees, the leading trusts case heard in the Privy Council in the last 20 years.” “Hugely impressive and a delight to work with.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“A very clever litigator, who’s thorough and hard-working. He’s thinks very hard about trusts law and writes very well on the subject too.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
“A man with a remarkable intellect and great breadth of knowledge, who is excellent at communication and recognising the interrelation of very complex matters.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“A very clever guy who uses his intelligence in a practical way.” (2022 – UK and Global)
“He is intelligent, innovative and forceful.” (2021 – UK and Global)
“Marcus is frequently instructed in contentious trust disputes, handling such issues as the removal of trustees and tax-related matters. He has also been involved in matters relating to investment funds and civil fraud.”
“Marcus Staff provided clear and concise advice in technically tricky cases.” “He is knowledgeable, user-friendly and client-focused.” (Chambers & Partners 2023)
“He has a great international trusts practice.” (Chambers & Partners 2021 – UK and Global)
“Very easy to work with and a proficient communicator, very knowledgeable in the trusts sector.” (Legal 500 2022)
“He is a barrister of the highest calibre. He is incredibly detailed, leaves no stone unturned and user friendly.” (Legal 500 2021)
“He is extremely thorough and detailed. He leaves no stone unturned. Especially good on matters connected with Switzerland and Swiss law. A really top senior junior who solicitors look forward to working with again soon.” (Legal 500 2023)
“He is engaged, to the point, highly intelligent, innovative, industrious and a team player.” (Legal 500 2022)
“Has good experience and sufficient flexibility when dealing with difficult clients.” (Legal 500 2021)
Coverage & Insights
- ‘The Arbitration of Trust Disputes’, 7(4) J. Int’l Tr. & Corp. Plan. 203, 207 (1999), (Journal of International Trust & Corporate Planning)
- ‘The Use of Trusts for Corporate Structuring in Common Law Jurisdictions’, ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 384–393 (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law) Vol. 117 [2018], No. 3
- ‘Common Law Assistance and Cross-Border Insolvency: From Modified Universalism to Supra-Territoriality’ (2015) 8 Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 3, 3
- ‘Disloyalty in the UK Capital Markets: Investment Intermediaries and Fiduciary Duties’ JIBFL, 2014, 98-101
- ‘The Arbitration of Trust Disputes’, 7(4) J. Int’l Tr. & Corp. Plan. 203, 207 (1999), (Journal of International Trust & Corporate Planning)
- ‘The Use of Trusts for Corporate Structuring in Common Law Jurisdictions’, ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 384–393 (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law) Vol. 117 [2018], No. 3
- ‘Common Law Assistance and Cross-Border Insolvency: From Modified Universalism to Supra-Territoriality’ (2015) 8 Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 3, 3
- ‘Disloyalty in the UK Capital Markets: Investment Intermediaries and Fiduciary Duties’ JIBFL, 2014, 98-101
Qualifications & Education
Called to the Bar in:
- Cayman Islands — case specific admissions (2005-2018), full admission (2025)
- Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (2015)
- England and Wales (1994).
Education
- Inns of Court School of Law, Gray’s Inn (1994)
- University of York, BA (Hons) (1990), LLM (Distinction)
Called to the Bar in:
- Cayman Islands — case specific admissions (2005-2018), full admission (2025)
- Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (2015)
- England and Wales (1994).
Education
- Inns of Court School of Law, Gray’s Inn (1994)
- University of York, BA (Hons) (1990), LLM (Distinction)
