“A challenge to the legality of a technique used by the issuers of corporate bonds which had acquired the label ‘exit consent’ succeeded on the ground that it was not lawful for the majority bondholders to lend its aid to the coercion of a minority by voting for a resolution which expropriated the minority’s rights under their bonds for a nominal consideration.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Joddrell v Peaktone Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1035; [2012] WLR (D) 229
“The deeming provision, as to the restoration of a company to the Register of Companies, contained within section 1032(1) of the Companies Act 2006, was apt retrospectively to validate an action commenced by or against a company during the period of its dissolution.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Government today set out its proposals to enhance the UK designs legal framework to make the system more accessible for businesses.”
Intellectual Property Office, 24th July 2012
Source: www.ipo.gov.uk
Maidment v Attwood and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 998; [2012] WLR (D) 220
“Where a minority shareholder had brought a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act alleging that remuneration paid to a director of a now insolvent company in liquidation was excessive and therefore unfairly prejudicial, there was no basis in the statutory provisions or in principle or in authority to impose a requirement for diligence on shareholders in regards to the company’s filed accounts.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The rule against reflective loss and the extent to which a shareholder could sue for loss primarily suffered by and primarily belonging to a company did not extend to loss suffered by holders of a debenture.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Back to the problem of when and where you can sue various members of a group of companies. In the Cape case (for which see my post), a parent company was held liable for failing to ensure that its subsidiary properly managed the risks posed by asbestos. In this case of Vava, the claimants wanted to sue a South African registered holding company (AASA) in the UK, on the basis that the real decisions were taken in the UK, and hence AASA were domiciled in the UK for purposes of suing them.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska faces a rival billionaire in London’s High Court on Monday in one of the UK’s largest ever commercial disputes.”
BBC News, 9th July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 808; [2012] WLR (D) 181
“There was no such thing in English law as a ‘remedial constructive contract’ and the courts had no jurisdiction to subject parties to contractual obligations under a contract to which neither they, not the only undisputed parties to the contract had ever agreed or intended they should be subject. The Court of Appeal was bound to uphold the principle that it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances existed indicating that it was only a façade concealing the true facts. The veil-piercing principle had been developed pragmatically for the purpose of providing a practical solution in particular factual circumstances and could not be invoked wherever it was necessary to do so in the interests of justice and no unconnected third party was involved.”
WLR Daily, 20th June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has clarified its position on piercing the corporate veil rejecting an appeal against brought by state-owned Russian bank VTB Capital against Nutritrek International.”
The Lawyer, 20th June 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“Piercing the corporate veil is currently a hot topic with a difference of opinion between various judges on several of the finer points, especially in a contractual context (compare Burton J in Gramsci v Stepanovs [2011] EWCH 333 Comm with Arnold J in VTB v Nutritek [2011] EWCH 3107 CH). In the meantime, while the decision of the Court of Appeal in VTB is eagerly awaited, the doctrine is essential to do justice in practice in many cases even though its theoretical underpinnings remain somewhat elusive.”
11 Stone Buildings, June 2012
Source: www.11sb.com
“Plans for a new tool to tackle economic crime were published today for consultation by Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC and Justice Minister Crispin Blunt.”
Attorney General’s Office, 17th May 2012
Source: www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk
“Anti-race and sex discrimination laws brought in under Labour are set to be scrapped because the ‘unnecessary’ rules are damaging businesses, Theresa May has said.”
Daily Telegraph, 16th May 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The Government will introduce new laws that enable businesses and prosecutors to negotiate the punishments those firms should face for unlawful activity before the end of this Parliament, a top legal advisor has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd March 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Legislation to enable US-style deferred prosecutions for corporate crime may feature in the Queen’s speech on 9 May.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th March 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Proposed changes to companies’ annual reporting requirements intended to provide greater clarity on how businesses are run and increase transparency with regards to executive pay will not take effect until April 2013, the Government has announced.”
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Companies with more than 250 employees will have to automatically enrol their staff into a workplace pension scheme from October as originally planned, the Government has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 26th January 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Lawyers have expressed concern over the European Commission’s overhaul of the EU’s online privacy rules that will see companies facing fines of as much as 2 per cent of annual turnover for breach of code.”
The Lawyer, 25th January 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“Companies employing fewer than 10 staff may be exempted from employment regulations under a consultation to be announced on Wednesday, to promote economic growth.”
The Guardian, 22nd November 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“KPMG Lecture, 18th October 2011.”
Judiciary of England & Wales, 18th October 2011
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“UK businesses should identify and change behaviour that may be deemed to be anti-competitive, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 27th June 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024