Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 March 2016 (STS 151/2016)
The judgment of the Supreme Court analyses the objective scope of extension of the liability for obligations and debts for which, as appropriate, the director of a company should be liable and, more specifically, the scope of "the corporate obligations subsequent to the occurrence of the legal ground for dissolution".
Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.
Fidèle à sa jurisprudence, la Cour de cassation réitère sa position : de la seule fonction de dirigeant ne peut se déduire la qualité de caution avertie. En pareil cas, c’est à l’établissement de crédit de prouver qu’il s’est acquitté de son devoir de mise en garde lorsqu’il en est effectivement tenu.
The fortunes of agricultural businesses across the world have always been vulnerable to natural and economic forces such as climate change, world commodity pricing and exchange rate movement. Nowhere is this more evident today than in the current crisis facing the UK dairy farming industry where the unique political and environmental conditions of 2014 have driven milk prices down to some of the lowest levels seen in recent years testing the viability of many of the country’s dairy farmers.
Chances are those well-known eloquent lyrics have stirred up some patriotic spirit from somewhere deep within even the most sporting averse of us.
With the 2016 summer of sport fast upon us the effect of the Euros, Wimbledon and the Olympics could have a significant impact on the economy (and the nerves) of the nation.
The Supreme Court rules in a recent decision over different bankruptcy incidents. The first relates to a work contract to supply materials in which a penalty clause for late work is established, and the ability to execute the works under the guarantee provided in the contract if the contractor may not execute them. Having a delay in delivery of the work and having entrusted to another company the repair works, the owner claimed the payment of the amounts and compensation with the guarantee held.
The performance of the UK manufacturing sector is one of the key indicators of the health of the UK economy as a whole. To what extent is the current stagnant growth in that sector a result of the impending EU referendum?
This post addresses the question of how retention of title (“ROT”) provisions are effectively agreed to as part of the contractual relationship between a supplier and its German customer under German law.
The statistics show that over 10,000 English limited companies operate in Germany. The company is registered in the Companies Register in the UK, but has a branch active in Germany, which is registered in German Company registries. On 10 December 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decided on the question whether the liability of the director of English registered Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (‘KMD’), which was subjected to German insolvency proceedings, should be determined by English law or by German law.
The facts are as follows: an insolvency creditor challenged the decision of the administrator in bankruptcy of a company about not recognizing its credit. The credit derived from a guarantee granted to secure a promissory note from a company belonging to the group of the insolvent company.