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".
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 Supreme Court reiterates the doctrine in its rulings of February 12 and 19, 2013, although in this case, unlike the above rulings, in which the credits were classified as insolvency credits, it concluded that instalments resulting from one finance lease agreement falling due after the declaration of insolvency are claims against the insolvency estate.
SUPREME COURT RULING NO. 44/2103, OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013: INSOLVENCY CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCE LEASE INSTALMENTS DEPENDS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT
Supreme Court finds that where a finance lease agreement releases the lessor from liability for defects, credits resulting from payments due before the declaration of insolvency and for those falling due after it are insolvency credits
In a landmark legal development, a judgment of the DIFC Courts has been recognised and enforced for the first time in a Western jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, issued an order recognising and enforcing the DIFC Courts judgment issued by Justice Sir Richard Field in Legatum Limited v Arif Salim (CFI 027/2014).
Welcome to this bulletin from 1 Chancery Lane's Property, Chancery and Commercial Law team.
In this edition:
On 24 October 2012 the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision on the enforceability of foreign judgments in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance S.A. [2012] UKSC 46, reversing the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal which had significantly altered the landscape of cross-border insolvency.
In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)1 the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.
Background
Introduction