All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
To see this information in full, subscribe to Gore-Browne Online, request a FREE trial to this service or any other Gore-Browne on EU, International Corporate Procedures, Jordans Company Administration and Governance,
26 November 2012
Mr Gerard Van Tonder for the applicant
Mr Michael Wheater for the respondent
Cur adv vult
MR NEWEY J:
 The application before me relates to a winding-up petition that Fire Defence plc has presented against R&S Fire and Security Services Limited. By the application, R&S asks that Fire Defence be restrained from advertising the petition and for the petition to be removed from the file of proceedings.
Court of Appeal
Lloyd, Aikens, Beatson LLJ
22 April 2013
Simon Goldblatt Q.C. and Karen Gough for the Appellants
Ben Valentin for the Respondents
Introduction and summary
 In this appeal, from an order of Hamblen J dated 30 May 2012, the appellants contend that it is not lawful under English law for a company to undertake a process which they characterise as buying the votes of the holders of notes or other securities issued by the company. To put the point more formally, the issue is whether English law permits a company to solicit and procure votes in support of a financial restructuring proposal by offering and making cash payments to those members of the relevant class who vote in favour of the proposal but excluding from the payment those who vote against it or do not vote on the resolution at all. The process is referred to as consent solicitation, and the payments as consent payments.
12 April 2013
Stephen Robins for the applicant
 This is an application seeking the appointment of administrators over Tambrook Jersey Ltd ("Tambrook") made by secured creditors. It is made pursuant to a letter of request issued by the Royal Court of Jersey dated 28th February 2013, which is said to amount to a request for assistance within section 426(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986. It presents the relatively unusual feature that there are no existing insolvency proceeding in Jersey, and apparently no intention to commence any. That raises the question of whether what is being proposed falls within the verb "assist" in section 426(4). This is a significant point of principle, and a forthcoming intended sale of assets makes delivery of this judgment urgent.
Mr. N. Strauss Q.C.
19 February 2013
Mr. Gavin Hamilton for the claimant.
Mr. Robert Bourne for 3rd defendant.
Cur adv vult
MR. N. STRAUSS QC:
 This was the trial of a claim in this action which resulted from the fraudulent conduct of the 1st and 2nd defendants ("Mr. and Mrs. Apostolou") towards the claimant ("Acute") and the 3rd defendant ("Dr. Savouri"). The action has not been pursued against Mr. and Mrs. Apostolou, and the dispute before me is whether Acute or Dr. Savouri is to bear the loss resulting from their conduct. No other party was involved in the hearing before me.
To log-in click here
"This is an indispensable aid to the busy company secretary. The text is clear, the precedents...