Original news
Mikki v Duncan [2016] EWCA Civ 1312, [2017] All ER (D) 157 (Feb)
To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).
On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.
- On 29th September 2004 the Trustees of the Ashtead United Charity allocated Mrs Janet Watts accommodation in an almshouse, in fact one of 14 residential flats the Charity owned at Ashstead in Surrey. In May 2015 they issued proceedings for possession based on the allegations that Mrs Watts had acted in an anti-social manner, swearing, spitting, and aggression. This was a breach of the terms of the Appointments Letter under which she was allocated the property.
Facts
The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.
Facts
Angove’s PTY Ltd (‘Angove’s’) is an Australian winemaker which for many years had employed D&D Wines International Ltd (‘D&D’) to distribute its products to retailers. In addition, D&D also purchased wine for itself direct from Angove’s. Their business relationship was governed by an Agency and Distribution Agreement (‘ADA’) entered in December 2011. Amongst its provisions, the ADA entitled the parties to terminate the agreement with immediate effect upon either becoming insolvent.
Facts
Mr Patel transferred Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on shares in RBS using insider information which Mr Mirza hoped to obtain from RBS contacts. The inside information did not come through and Mr Mirza refused to return the sums to Mr Patel. Mr Patel subsequently sued Mr Mirza for recovery of the £620,000 on the
basis of unjust enrichment.