Key points
The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is a complete statutory code for the payment of interest.
Statutory interest represents compensation for dividends paid after the administration, and does not depend on any right to interest under the underlying claim.
Regard can be had, however, to the rate at which interest would have been paid to the creditor after the administration.
The facts
The Facts
This case is the first to really consider the practical impact of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Shlosberg v Avonwick [2016] EWCA Civ 1138, in which it was decided that legal professional privilege does not vest in a Trustee in Bankruptcy.
Court of Appeal sets out test for whether defendant has assets for a freezing order application and considers the impact of delay in applying
The Facts
The Facts
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable
The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment on Parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Appeal, as part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £8 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).
Court of Appeal judgment: Burlington Loan Management and others v Lomas and others (as the joint administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)) [2017] EWCA Civ 1462
Summary and background
Key Points
- Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
- The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors
The Facts
This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.
BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.