The terms of a company voluntary arrangement would have been effective to prevent landlords from enforcing guarantees given by a parent company in respect of its subsidiary’s obligations under leases but in the circumstances the CVA unfairly prejudiced the interests of the landlords as creditors of the subsidiary within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.6(1)(a).
|
The appellant company (A) appealed against a decision that it could not claim against the R1 (Bank of Zambia) as the beneficiary of a declaration of trust of a debt admittedly due from R1 and R1 appealed against a decision that the debt had been validly assigned. The admitted debt due from R1 had been traded in the distressed debt market under a facility which, according to its terms, only permitted assignment with R1’s prior written consent. This was deemed to have been given if R1 failed to re ...
|
The issue concerned whether an injunction should be granted against a person bound by an arbitration agreement to restrain him from commencing or prosecuting proceedings in breach of the agreement in a court of another Member State that had jurisdiction under Regulation 44/1001. A, the appellant insurers (RAS) appealed against a decision which granted an injunction restraining them from proceeding with an action that they had commenced against R, the respondent shipowner (West Tankers) in Italy. ...
|
The appellant charterers appealed a decision that a claim by the respondent shipowners to rescind various charterparties on grounds of bribery should not be stayed to arbitration. The law and litigation clause contained in the charters entered into by the owners provided for any dispute under the charter to be decided in England and conferred upon either party the right to refer any such dispute to arbitration. A sub-clause made reference to a dispute ‘arising out of’ the charter. The charterers ...
|
The appellant company (C) appealed against the decision that a payment to C by an insolvent company (S) had been a transaction at undervalue. C had lent £65,000.00 to (P) who was the person who controlled S. At P’s request C had paid the money directly into S’s bank account creating an obligation on S to repay P. Just prior to the term of the loan expiring S had repaid £50,000.00 of the loan to C. S was insolvent at the time and shortly thereafter went into creditors’ voluntary winding-up. Held ...
|
The appellant charterers appealed on questions of law against an arbitrators’ award of damages to the respondent shipowners for loss resulting from the delay in their ship, the Count, leaving Beira port. The delay resulted from the blockage of the approach channel by a grounded incoming vessel. The arbitrators found that there was a causal link between the grounding and the delay to the Count and that the grounding had been caused by misalignment of the buoys resulting from poor monitoring of th ...
|
The petitioner raised proceedings against the respondent for a disqualification order under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The events that gave rise to the petition arose out of allegations regarding the respondent's conduct in the course of the winding up of the company known as Oakbank (J&S) Limited.
|
The petitioner raised proceedings against the respondent for a disqualification order under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The events that gave rise to the petition arose out of allegations regarding the respondent's conduct in the course of the winding up of the company known as Oakbank (J&S) Limited.
|
The issues raised in this case were whether the defendant reinsurer was bound by a reinsurance treaty signed by an agent supposedly on its behalf, but without authority to do so, on the grounds either that the agent had ostensible authority to do so or, if not, on the grounds that that the defendant reinsurer ratified the contract. Held: the Claimant’s claim was dismissed since the Judge concluded that the defendant had not represented to the claimant that its alleged agent had such authority, a ...
|
The paramount purpose of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.213 was to compensate those who had suffered loss as a result of the fraudulent trading and it would defeat the effectiveness of the section in practice if liability were limited to those cases in which the board of directors of an "outsider" company was actually privy to the fraud of the company. The application of s.213 required a special rule of attribution in order to make its self-evident policy effective.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |