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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll