Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v Zhunus [2016] EWCA Civ 1036 – Court of Appeal

A group of companies brought proceedings against their former chairman (“Mr Zhunus”), CEO (Mr Arip”) and former director (“Mr Dikhanbayeva”) for misappropriation of their assets.

It is standard market terms for a lender to have the express right to transfer its loan. In particular, English law governed syndicated loan documents will usually incorporate the Loan Market Association (LMA) wording (or similar) to this effect. Interestingly, the Court of Appeal has recently had to consider the scope for implying terms into such LMA-style language and whether to restrict a lender’s right to market the sale of the loan under those standard terms.

Overview

In IBRC v Camden[1], the Court of Appeal held that a lender's express contractual power to market a loan was not subject to an implied limitation that doing so should not interfere with the borrower's ability to obtain the best price for the assets securing the loan. In so doing, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any express term of the agreement.

Background

In Akers (and others) v. Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed the limited nature of British insolvency officer-holders’ ability to void dispositions of a company’s assets held on trust. The Supreme Court also highlighted the potential dangers inherent in holding on trust assets located in jurisdictions which do not recognise common law trusts.

Case law on wrongful trading has developed significantly over the past two years, with the cases of Ralls Buildersand Brooksincreasing judicial consideration of the conduct of directors in the period preceding an insolvency.

The High Court yesterday held that a Chairperson of a shareholder scheme meeting may reject votes cast against a scheme of arrangement in circumstances where the shares were acquired through an artificial share-splitting exercise designed to frustrate the scheme. It is the first English case to consider this issue and while it arose in the context of a shareholder scheme, the impact is also significant for debt restructurings implemented by way of a creditor scheme of arrangement.

Background

HENRY GEORGE DICKINSON (Claimant) v (1) NAL REALISATIONS (STAFFORDSHIRE) LTD (2) KEVIN JOHN HELLARD & GERALD KRASNER (JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT) (Defendants) & JUDITH YAP DICKINSON (Third Party) & ROBERT WILLIAMSON (Fourth Party) [2017] EWHC 28 (Ch)

Norton Aluminium Limited ("the Company") went into administration in August 2012 when it received a draft judgment in favour of local residents in a claim for nuisance, which resulted in substantial damages being award and likely legal costs.

'Close of business' is a term many people use in their day to day working life without much thought. But what does it actually mean and should the term be used in contractual documentation?

Agreeing to get something done by 'close of business' is a phrase often used when flexibility is required as to the time a task will be completed. It makes it clear the task will be done that day, but not by a particular time. However, what does the term mean when it is included in a contract?

You will have previously seen a landlord's consent is usually required to enable a pharmacist to assign or sell their lease to a third party.

It is usual for the landlord's consent to be specified not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

On a lease assignment a landlord will want to ensure that the tenant is of sufficient financial strength to be able to comply with the lease covenants (including payment of the rent).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case ofDonnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland (Donnelly) and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond (Dooneen).