‘A judge has dismissed a claim that national firm Slater and Gordon was passed confidential information which caused it to chop £63m off the price of an acquisition.’
Law Society's Gazette, 15th May 2023
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Most of us have experienced the sense of frustration and helplessness when losing a purse or wallet. Imagine your wallet was digital, and contained $4 billion in assets. Now imagine the device which held your wallet containing $4 billion in assets was hacked, and your assets disappeared into the ether.’
3PB, 2nd March 2023
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Company directors need to remain wary of their duty to consider the interests of creditors in certain circumstances, despite a new UK Supreme Court ruling that they are likely to welcome, experts have said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘This appeal raised questions of considerable importance for company law. It provides the first opportunity for the Supreme Court to consider the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of company directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.’
UKSC Blog, 5th October 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The universe of socially responsible or “ethical” investments has been expanding exponentially in recent years.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 18th July 2022
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘In this post, Amy Wilkinson, a senior associate in CMS’ financial crime team, comments on the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd [2021] UKSC 49. On 3 November 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and ruled in favour of Aquila Advisory Ltd. The decision concerns attribution of directors’ criminal actions and who should have priority over assets derived from their criminal schemes.’
UKSC Blog, 4th May 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The claim related to an opportunity to develop a Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) dealership in Wolverhampton (the Wolverhampton Opportunity), which the claimants alleged was lost due to the negligence of the defendant solicitors.’
Hailsham Chambers, 8th October 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A cautionary tale of a Tribunal appointed manager behaving badly and a reminder that the appointed manager’s duty is to carry out what is in the order appointing them, and that they answer to the Tribunal as an officer of the Tribunal.’
Nearly Legal, 30th August 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In Burnell v Trans-Tag Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1457 (Ch) Mr Greenbank (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) was asked to determine whether, and if so to what extent, a director’s fiduciary duties survive the termination of the directorship. The essential part of the judgment on this point is at paragraph 391 to 410. The Defendants in this case were represented by Richard Leiper QC and Charlotte Davies, instructed by Clyde & Co LLP.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th June 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘The court was faced with a category 2 and 3 Public Trustee v Cooper application principally for the approval of a momentous decision. The court was initially asked to approve the entirety of a settlement reached between four trustees split into two camps but later asked to approve only the dispositive elements of the settlement. The settlement unusually resolved disputes between the trustees rather than between trustees and beneficiaries or third parties. The court was concerned with mutual allegations of inappropriate action as fiduciaries and the failure of both sides to manage conflicts of interest in arriving at a settlement. After stressing that such factors could impair the decision reached and which the court was asked to approve, the court refused its approval of part of the settlement. Written by James Saunders, barrister, at New Square Chambers.’
New Square Chambers, 11th February 2021
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned the first decision in England and Wales to hold that an expert witness owed a fiduciary duty to their client.’
Litigation Futures, 13th January 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In this review of the year, Helen Evans, Ben Smiley, Pippa Manby, and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square explain what the 2020 cases tell us, how the various strands of development interact, and what to watch out for as we go into 2021.’
4 New Square, 5th January 2021
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘A defendant’s potential exposure to paying the premium for after-the-event (ATE) insurance necessary to meet its demand for security for costs was “not relevant” to the question of security, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation is a charitable company with more than $4bn in assets helping children in developing countries. It was founded by Sir Christopher Hohn and Ms Jamie Cooper in 2002, but it became difficult to manage when their marriage broke down. These proceedings stem from the steps they took to resolve those difficulties. Specifically, they agreed that in exchange for a grant of $360 million to Big Win Philanthropy, a charity founded by Ms Cooper, she would resign as a member and trustee of CIFF.’
UKSC Blog, 29th July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this post, James Warshaw, an associate in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, previews the decision which is awaited in the matter of Lehtimaki and Ors v Cooper, which concerns whether the court has jurisdiction to direct members of a charitable company on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd July 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The case arose out of a corporate demerger which took place in relation to a family owned company, S Notaro Holdings (“Holdings”), on 28 April 2011. The First Claimant (C1), and the First Defendant (D1) were siblings. Prior to the demerger, they were both shareholders in and directors of Holdings. Neither were majority shareholders. D1 held 43.75% of the shares in Holdings, and C1 held 31.25%. In the demerger, C1 gave up her shares in Holdings in exchange for some assets of Holdings or its subsidiaries being transferred to the Second Claimant (C2), a company formed for that purpose, owned and controlled by C1.’
Hailsham Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘A law firm acting for different defendants against the same claimant did not owe that claimant a true fiduciary duty, and so did not have to prove its Chinese Wall worked, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 11th May 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023