header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 September 2022
Issue: 7995 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 23 September 2022

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Company

Re Nostrum Oil & Gas plc [2022] EWHC 2249 (Ch), [2022] All ER (D) 02 (Sep)

The Chancery Division allowed the application, pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 Pt 26, for an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement (the scheme) between the applicant, the parent company of a corporate group which operates an oil and gas business in Kazakhstan, and its scheme creditors, a number of whom have been made the targets of EU, UK, and US sanctions as a result of the war in Ukraine. As such, those creditors were ‘sanctions disqualified persons’ who had been prohibited from dealing with the two unsecured notes to which the scheme relates. Among other things, the court held that: (i) even if the sanctions disqualified persons had been permitted to vote on the scheme, the statutory majority would have been obtained; (ii) although the scheme consideration would be held for the sanctions disqualified persons on bare trust until they ceased to be subject to sanctions, the scheme was ‘fair’ as it is not

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll