The pursuers were respectively the legal and beneficial owners of certain Airbus A320-200 aircraft, which they had leased to ía Mexicana de Aviación SA de CV (“Mexicana”) until 2013. When Mexicana came into financial difficulties and were unable to pay sums due under the lease, the first pursuers terminated the leases on 5 August 2010. On 7 September 2010 an administrator was appointed to Mexicana to allow it to restructure its debts. It was averred that Mexicana had contr ...
|
In this summary application the pursuer, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, sought an order pursuant to section 29(6) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The defender was sequestrated on his own application to the AIB on 29th April 2008. The AIB was the trustee in sequestration. Both the pursuer and the defender had been discharged respectively however it had come to light that there were assets by way of a claim that the defender had against a third party. At the time of sequestration, the pursue ...
|
As joint liquidators, the noters applied in the winding up of Arakin Limited (i) for their outlays and remuneration as interim liquidators and liquidators for the period from 14 October 2004 until 28 February 2006 to be fixed; (ii) for a discharge from liability for their acts and omissions in the course of the winding up; and, thereafter, (iii) for the winding up to be sisted. Although the winding up was an insolvency based on the deemed inability of the company to pay its debts under s.123(1) ...
|
In this appeal brought pursuant to section 3(7) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, the appellant challenged a sequestrated debtor’s declaration of assets and liabilities in both his original documentation submitted in support of his sequestration, and the statement of affairs submitted to the trustee, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB). The appellant submitted that these figures were incorrect, and alleged that the debtor may have committed offences pursuant to sections 5(9)(c) and 19( ...
|
Debate:- In this action, the pursuers, Eastford Ltd, allege that the defender acted in breach of his fiduciary duty to the company, by acquiring for his own benefit a commercial opportunity which belonged to the company. This debate focused on a narrow aspect of that action, namely, whether a purported resolution of Eastford Ltd was invalid because a conflict of interest precluded certain directors of the company from voting on that resolution. The court surmised the lengthy background to ...
|
The Noters in this petition, who sought an Administration Order in respect of Heritable Bank plc, were the Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki, a company incorporated under the laws of Iceland. Heritable was a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2006, with its registered office in Glasgow. Both companies were the subject of insolvency proceedings. The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki had submitted claims in the Heritable Administration. Conversely, the Administrators of Heritable had submitt ...
|
The petitioner sought sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement under s899 of the Companies Act 2006, which required the court’s sanction. S899(1) provided that the court could sanction the scheme if it commanded a majority of 75% of either the number or value of their creditors. A dispute arose over the valuation of creditors, with the respondent challenging whether the petitioner was really able to command a 75% majority for sanction of the scheme, due to flaws in its valuations. In order to ...
|
The defender entered into construction contracts, under which the pursuer was a sub-contractor. Refinancing of the project led to delays and subsequent claims by the pursuer against the defender. In terms of their contractual agreement, three notices requiring adjudication were served against the defender, and duly granted in December 2009. In this action, the pursuer sought to enforce the three decisions of the adjudicator. The defender opposed enforcement of these decrees on the basis that t ...
|
The Appellants appealed against the granting of a Winding Up Order that had been made against them on the ground that they were unable to pay their debts.The Appellants had contended that their debt to the Petitioners/Respondents had been extinguished by a payment of £5,000 made in cash by a former employee to the Respondents’ director. The Sheriff had been given Affidavits provided by the employee and also the Respondents’ Director. The Director stated that he had not rece ...
|
Petition: petition for interdict. The petitioner sought to interdict the respondent, the permanent trustee, from seizing or disposing of property forming part of an estate. The relevant estate had been subject to sequestration which had been granted in January 2000. Sequestration was granted following failure to pay a principal sum decerned for at Dumbarton Sheriff court. A petition for recall was refused by Lord Hardie in 2000 and an appeal against that was refused by the Sheriff Principal. Sub ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |