“The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has made its first charges in relation to offences under the Bribery Act, it has announced.”
OUT-LAW.com, 16th August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“With the Crime and Courts Act having received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013, Andrew Price looks at the genesis of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and what may lie in store for the future.”
Full story (PDF)
Dyers Chambers, 11th July 2013
Source: www.dyerschambers.com
“In Fairstar Heavy Transport NV v (1) Philip Jeffrey Adkins (2) Claranet Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 886 the Court of Appeal has considered what right a company has to obtain work-related emails held by its former CEO on his personal computer.”
Panopticon, 26th July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Members of Dyers Chambers review developments across the spectrum of corporate crime and financial regulation, including updates on LIBOR, Sanctions, DPAs and Fraud Sentencing.”
Full story (PDF)
Dyers Chambers, 11th July 2013
Source: www.dyerschambers.com
“The judgment in Akzo Nobel NV v Competition Commission [2013] CAT 13 is an important decision on the ability of the Competition Commission (‘CC’) to block transactions between companies outside of the UK. However, neither party to the appeal will be entirely happy with the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (‘CAT’) legal analysis. There must therefore be a chance that – in a future case even if not in this one – the decision will be subject to attacks from both directions.”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 1st July 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
“Changes to the information that companies must include in their remuneration
reports are set to come into force from 1 October following the Government’s
publication of the final rules.”
OUT-LAW.com, 27th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“To widespread surprise, the Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun) although on a different basis from the decision of Mr Justice Moylan at first instance. For those law “nerds” amongst us, the new Supreme Court live feed added an extra frisson, with social media abuzz with speculation as to what it might mean that Lord Sumption was to give the lead judgment. It quickly became clear that this may be a red herring (for Lady Hale to give the lead judgment would have been too obvious a clue). However, a more detailed consideration of the judgment may lead us to conclude that Lord Sumption was a clue indeed and that the corporate veil has survived fully intact, albeit it with the Supreme Court wedging open some doors for family lawyers on the issues of trusts and inferences to be drawn from both pre- and post-litigation behaviour.”
New Law Journal, 27th June 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“Stephen Hockman QC has written a paper published by the Policy Network, entitled ‘Legislating for Responsible Capitalism: what it means in practice’.”
In the paper, he explores the legal amendments available to improve the monitoring, transparency and accountability of corporate practice.”
Full story (PDF)
Six Pump Court, 19th June 2013
Soruce: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
Prest v Prest and others [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WLR (D) 237
“If a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability, or subject to an existing legal restriction, which he deliberately evaded or the enforcement he deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under his control, the court could ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A mother is suing her former solicitor for £15 million, claiming that his poor advice cost her millions of pounds in a divorce settlement.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“In this note Marcia Shekerdemian takes a closer look at the statutory codification of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 (‘CA’) by reference to key case law, making this a highly practical guide for IPs who are considering bringing misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA’).”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is ‘entitled, either in possession or reversion’ for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) MCA.”
Zenith Chambers, 12th June 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers.”
Family Law Week, 14th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“The definition of ‘establishment’ in article 2(h) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 was to be applied with care where one was seeking to determine whether jurisdiction lay for a secondary winding up of a primarily foreign-based company.”
WLR Daily, 6th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corpn Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 1509 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 224
“A company which had a sole director, who also owned all its shares, did not hold or control its assets in accordance with that sole director and shareholder’s ‘direct or indirect instructions’ within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the standard form freezing order in the Civil Procedure Rules.”
WLR Daily, 6th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th June 2013
“Does a one-man company metamorphose into one man simply because the person with a wish to abstract its assets is his wife?”
The Guardian, 10th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Millionaire businessmen will be able to ‘stick two fingers up’ at judges if the highest court in the land rules against a former wife in a high-profile divorce case this week, her lawyers said yesterday.”
The Independent, 9th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024