Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,

English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.

Summary

El Real Decreto-ley 11/2013, de 2 de agosto, para la protección de los trabajadores a tiempo parcial y otras medidas urgentes en el orden económico y social, albergó diversas disposiciones de tipo so- cio-laboral, algunas de ellas referidas a reestructu- raciones laborales en empresas concursadas.

Quienes reclaman contra alguna medida colectiva de reestructuración (despidos, suspensiones, modificaciones sustanciales, movilidad geográfica, descuelgues de convenio) suelen denunciar que durante el período de consultas no se ha negociado de buena fe. Cuando las sentencias consideran que así ha sucedido declaran la nulidad de la correspondiente decisión, por disponerlo la Ley. Aunque suele pensarse en la negociación ex fide bona como deber de la empresa, hay que recordar su carácter bilateral.