Complicated case in which the Liquidator of the Letham Grange Development Company sought reduction of a security over the Letham Grange resort near Arbroath. The case involves a number of companies all controlled by a Mr Liu and his family. The grounds for challenge The Liquidator argued that the holder of the security (Foxworth) had (1) not acquired the rights under the security in good faith and for value and (2) the security was void as it was not in the correct form. Good fait ...
|
In this action, the pursuers and respondents sought decree for payment to them of £15,000 with interest, against the defender and appellant. The action was founded on the basis of a Personal Guarantee granted by the appellant to the respondent in respect of all sums owed from time to time to the respondents by the company, Fairclaim Limited, executed in June 2003. The appellant was a former direction of Fairclaim. The appellant submitted that he was unaware of the company’s previous ...
|
At first instance, the Lord Ordinary had required the creditors in this petition to produce documentation, for the purposes of conducting a proof. This documentation had previously been submitted to the petitioner as part of a valuation exercise, in connection with scheme sanctioning proceedings under sections 896 and 899 of the Companies Act 2006. The creditors reclaimed against the order of the Lord Ordinary, arguing that they were entitled to object to the production of such documentation and ...
|
The pursuers, the defender and others were formerly shareholders in a company called LAGTA Limited. In 2007 the defender, who was the managing director of the company, negotiated the sale of the shares in the company on behalf of the shareholders. In this action, the pursuers sought an accounting from the defender on the ground that he obtained an undisclosed benefit in breach of his fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary obligations to them in the context of those negotiations. In this debate on relevan ...
|
Farstad Supply A/S owned a vessel called the “Far Service”. On 4 February 1994, Aberdeen Service Company (North Sea) Ltd (“Asco UK Ltd”) chartered the Far Service from Farstad. Asco UK Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO plc, a major oil and gas logistics company registered in Scotland. They wished to use the Far Service to supply and service offshore installations.Enviroco Ltd cleans ships on an industrial scale among other things and is also registered in Scotland. Until 1999 it too, like ...
|
This petition related to the conduct of the affairs of the respondent and was first raised in November 1994; the petitioner was a shareholder in the first respondent, holding 24 out of 100 issued shares in the company. The petitioner sought an order under section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 for an order requiring the company and certain of its shareholders to purchase the shares in the company held by the petitioner at a price that represented, at the valuation date, that proportion of the val ...
|
In this action, the pursuer sought to enforce rights over property obtained by the first defender allegedly in breach of fiduciary duties owed by him to the pursuer as one of its directors. Before the Lord Ordinary at first instance, the defenders had challenged the relevancy of the pursuer’s averments and sought its dismissal on the grounds that a ratification of the raising of the action at the pursuer’s meeting of directors was ineffective, because two of the directors had persona ...
|
The pursuer was a former director of a company called Fridge Freight (Fyvie) Limited (FFF). In September 1997 FFF went into receivership and insolvency practitioners Scott Oswald were appointed Joint Receivers of the company. When this action was raised the partnership of Scott Oswald had dissolved and the defenders had assumed the former partnership’s rights and liabilities in respect of FFF. In February 1997, the pursuer granted a personal guarantee to the Royal Bank of Scotland in r ...
|
The defenders were former directors of the pursuer company, a family business involved in property development. The pursuer company encountered financial difficulties, which were exacerbated by the failure of the defenders as directors to keep proper books and records of the company’s affairs and financial position. The pursuer company was put into administration. Latterly, the administrators brought an action against the defenders, alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duties as ...
|
The petitioners were the joint administrators of Martin Groundland & Co Ltd. In respect of the first accounting period, the petitioners had submitted their accounts of intromissions with the company’s assets and their claims for (a) outlays reasonably incurred by them (in the sum of £1,394.75 plus VAT) and (b) for their remuneration (£517,581.00 plus VAT). Two of the three members of the creditors’ committee of the company refused to approve the petitioners’ claim ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |