When considering whether a company facing a wind-up petition had a genuine and serious cross-claim against the petitioning creditor the Judge had not erred in law by requiring that the company should have previously asserted, litigated or issued proceedings for the cross-claim, but he had quite legitimately taken into account as a relevant circumstance the fact that the company had not done so.
|
By virtue of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.178(4)(b), the original tenant’s liability under a guarantee survived the disclaimer of the relevant lease by the liquidator of the company to which the lease had been assigned.
|
An appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Belize on the construction of an article in the articles of association of Belize Telecommunications Ltd, a company which had been formed to take over the undertaking of the Belize Telecommunications Authority. The CA rejected A’s argument that the articles should be construed as providing by implication that a director appointed by virtue of a specified shareholding would vacate his office if there was no longer any holder of such a shareho ...
|
The appellant appealed against an order annulling his bankruptcy and ordering him to make a lump sum payment to the respondent wife. Held when an applicant for annulment of a bankruptcy order made on a debtor’s petition established that the debtor’s assets exceeded his liabilities, the evidential onus shifted to the debtor to establish that he was unable to pay his debts.
|
The fact that a bankruptcy order had been made against an offender and all his assets were in the hands of his trustee in bankruptcy did not affect the judge’s power to make a confiscation order.
|
A creditors’ voluntary arrangement was construed so that the supervisors of the agreement could consider claims submitted late by creditors who had not had notice of the creditors’ meeting if the delay had not resulted from the creditors’ wilful default or lack of responsible diligence.
|
Proof:- The petitioner owned 28.57% of the issued share capital in a company which was incorporated on 3 August 2000. The respondent was the sole director of the company and owned 57.15% of the issued share capital in it. The other shareholders were Charles Moncur, who owned 9.52% of the issued share capital, and Aberdeen City Council, which owned 4.76% of the issued share capital. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had operated the company in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to t ...
|
The legislation relating to the assessment of compensation payable to former shareholders of Northern Rock plc following nationalisation was not unfair or incompatible with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 art.1. Allegations of regulatory failure did not change the position because the primary fault for the insolvency lay with Northern Rock’s management. If there was a regulatory failure it was not in any duty owed to the shareholders. T ...
|
Where the provision under Regulation 1346/2000 art.33(1) relating to secondary proceedings would not be adequate because the joint administrators in the main proceedings required the companies in administration to continue trading, it was highly desirable that the assistance of the courts of other Members States should be sought with a view to enabling the administrators to be heard prior to the opening of any secondary insolvency proceedings in those jurisdictions.
|
The effect of the Sch.B1 para.43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not that proceedings brought against a company in administration without consent or permission of the court were a nullity, but only that they were liable to be stayed. Thus when considering a claim made without consent of the administrators against a company in administration, the correct course for an employment tribunal to take was to accept the claim but stay proceedings pending the issue of consent.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |