header-logo header-logo

03 March 2017
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others; B.A.T. Industries plc v Sequana SA and another [2017] EWHC 211 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 176 (Feb)

The Chancery Division ruled on consequential matters following its main judgment on claims brought against Sequana SA and others, challenging dividend payments. In respect of the second claim, the court held that, in circumstances where the claimant (BAT) had succeeded in part on its claim, under s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (transfers defrauding creditors), it would be wrong to treat an agreement, entered into following the main judgment, as a change of circumstance, which militated against the grant of any relief to BAT, under s 423. Accordingly, BAT was granted relief, under s 423 of the Act, in the form it proposed.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll