‘The High Court has ruled that company directors cannot buy assets from their liquidated companies at below market value.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th January 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Directors of insolvent companies should not be allowed to buy assets of the business on the cheap, the High Court has ruled. In Systems Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), the court this week ruled that a director is liable to pay the liquidators of his company money he saved by not placing a house owned by the company on the open market when the company went under.’
Law Society's Gazette, 22nd January 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Last week, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Singularis Holdings Ltd v. Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50. That case got the attention that it did because of the tension with the result in Stone & Rolls Ltd v. Moore Stephens. Others have dealt with the detail of the decision in Singularis (including an excellent article by my colleague, Mark Cannon QC). I want to look more generally at the issues created by attribution in a corporate context, and how the courts in recent years have approached them.’
4 New Square, 6th November 2019
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘In May 2019, the requisite majority of the creditors of Debenhams Retail Ltd voted in favour of a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed pursuant to s.1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. As has become common, the scheme of arrangement proposed by the CVA only affected the rights of landlords and rating authorities. All other creditors were to be paid in full.’
Falcon Chambers, 31st October 2019
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Phillip Patterson provides a summary of recent corporate insolvency cases covering:
– Fraudulent trading;
– Misfeasance, transactions defrauding creditors and the duties of directors; and
– The out of court appointment of administrators.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th October 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Shareholder claims principally consist of unfair prejudice petitions (UPPs), instigated by members on their own behalf, and derivative actions (DAs), brought by the members on behalf of the company. Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] and Tonstate Group Ltd and Ors v Edward Wojakovski [2019] have developed the law surrounding a shareholder’s ability to bring UPPs and DAs. They involve family-run companies, providing cautionary tales for family members who choose not to formalise matters sufficiently.’
Law Society Gazette, 23rd September 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Pinsent Masons, 24th Septwmber 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The first respondent (“Koza Ltd”) was a private company incorporated in England in March 2014. Koza Ltd was a wholly owned subsidiary of the sixth appellant (“Koza Altin”), a publicly listed company incorporated in Turkey and part of a group of Turkish companies known as the Koza Ipek Group (“the Group”). The Group was formerly controlled by the second respondent (“Mr Ipek”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 29 July 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Akçil and others v Koza Ltd and another [2019] UKSC 40 (see Supreme Court judgment) unanimously overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal ([2017] EWCA Civ 1609) regarding the interpretation of the the exclusive company law jurisdictional provisions in Article 24(2) of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation (1215/2012).’
39 Essex Chambers, 2nd August 2019
Source: www.39essex.com
‘A critical part of any unfair prejudice petition is the valuation of the minority shareholding. Paul Mitchell QC and Nigel Burroughs of 4 New Square were counsel on different sides in Swain v Swains Plc, a case in which the expert share valuation evidence was taken concurrently. They look at the pros and cons of hot tubbing, and offer practical advice on how to approach the way experts should give their evidence.’
4 New Square, 22nd July 2019
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘As the law of unfair prejudice in the conduct of companies’ affairs has developed, sports clubs (particularly football and rugby clubs) have proved to be fertile sources of disputes between shareholders. In this article, we examine unfair prejudice petitions which have concerned the sports sector to look at the effects of those decisions and at what we can learn not just about the sorts of shareholder disputes which arise in sports clubs but also what we can learn from those decisions and apply to shareholder disputes in other contexts.’
4 New Square, 24th July 2019
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The High Court recently had reason to consider liability where individuals, who owe fiduciary duties to a company, divert for themselves a business opportunity.’
Blackstone Chambers, 25th February 2019
Source: www.employeecompetition.com
‘New laws requiring large quoted UK public companies to be more open about their remuneration of boardroom executives have come into force.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th January 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Legal professional privilege can protect the documents of a dissolved company from disclosure, the High Court has ruled in a case involving global firm Dentons.’
Legal Futures, 22nd November 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The UK government has published new tools designed to improve rescue opportunities for companies in financial distress and put more emphasis on directors’ duties.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Company bosses who dissolve their firms to avoid paying off staff or meeting pension commitments will risk being hit with fines, under new government plans.’
BBC News, 26th August 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Mark Mullen appeared for HM Attorney General before the Court of Appeal in Lehtimäki v The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) and others [2018] EWCA Civ 1605.
In the claim, the claimant (‘CIFF’), a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity, sought approval of the making of a grant of $360 million to a new charity established by one of its directors.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 6th July 2018
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘It is not incomprehensible that wealthy business shareholders feed their high-net-worth assets through their companies, with the consequence of making the assets available to their spouse limited and out of reach. It therefore comes as no real surprise that the English family courts have shown that they are prepared to tackle the issues related with parties hiding international assets within divorce proceedings, whilst trying to remedy the same.’
Family Law, 2nd July 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal in England and Wales has ruled that a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) should not continue after the emergence of a new claim for £126 million against the insolvent company. The ruling underlined how important clarity and specificity are in contract terms.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2023