Litigation
Lender not obliged to advise borrower about onerous term
In Finch and another v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others, the High Court considered whether a lender had a duty to advise a borrower about a clause in its loan agreement making it liable for the bank's hedging break costs if the borrower chose to repay a fixed rate loan early.
June 2016 BREXIT A changing legal landscape? 1 INTRODUCTION Yesterday, the UK public voted for the UK to leave the European Union ( EU). This briefing discusses, in outline, the potential timetable for Brexit, the possible shape that Brexit might take and the potential impact Brexit might have on certain areas of law relevant to your business.
The High Court recently considered Protective Certificates (PC) in the context of Personal Insolvency Arrangements (PIA) in the recent case of Clones Credit Union –v- McManus. A Protective Certificate can be obtained by debtors to prevent enforcement action threatened by creditors. The PC allows such protection for a period of 70 days to facilitate an informal arrangement with creditors.
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a limitation order (providing for the restoration to the register of a dissolved company, C, and the suspension of the limitation period during dissolution) and provided guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when making such an order.
Shortly before being placed into administration C entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement. C later went into liquidation; however, the purchase price in respect of the sale was not received before the company was dissolved, over four years later.
Tough trading conditions
Litigation
A referral to the financial list!
In GSO Credit v Barclays Bank plc, the Commercial Court has given guidance on the interpretation of terms in, but not directly defined by, standard Loan Market Association (LMA) documentation which was used in the context of secondary trading of a commitment under a surety bonds facility.
Where a company brings a claim against its directors for losses caused by their wrongdoing, the Supreme Court has confirmed the established position that directors cannot escape the claim by arguing that their actions are attributed to the company itself on the basis that the directors were acting as the agents of the company.