82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Concord Trust v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc - Case Note to Concord Trust v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cite|Concord Trust|The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc|2004|EWCACiv|1001)}} (Court of Appeal) <br> | {{cn}}{{cite|Concord Trust|The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc|2004|EWCACiv|1001)}} (Court of Appeal) <br> | ||
{{cite|Concord Trust|Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc|2005|UKHL|27}} (House of Lords) | {{cite|Concord Trust|Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc|2005|UKHL|27}} (House of Lords) | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Before the trustee could issue a notice of [[acceleration]], Elektrim denied the suspension qualified as an [[Event of Default]] and warned the [[trustee]] it would suffer substantial losses if they went ahead with it. | Before the trustee could issue a notice of [[acceleration]], Elektrim denied the suspension qualified as an [[Event of Default]] and warned the [[trustee]] it would suffer substantial losses if they went ahead with it. | ||
The trustee sought indemnification from the bondholders for any liabilities it might incur for those losses. | The [[trustee]] feared<ref>[[Trustee]]s are fearful beasts, and will usually only do anything under cover of an {{t|indemnity}}</ref> that it might face a substantial claim upon a disputed acceleration of the bonds. It sought indemnification from the bondholders for any liabilities it might incur for those losses. | ||
Bondholders did not like this. | Bondholders did not like this. They offered a limited [[indemnity]] for the costs of taking action, but not for the wider liability to the issuer for damages. | ||
Writs flew. | Writs flew. | ||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Judgments=== | ===Judgments=== | ||
====High Court==== | ====High Court==== | ||
At first instance the Vice Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt, thought the Trustee’s refusal to accept a limited [[indemnity]] was not “[[Wednesbury]]” unreasonable. He declined to regard as absurd the contention that the liability might be in the region of EUR1bn." | |||
====[[Court of Appeal]]==== | ====[[Court of Appeal]]==== | ||
The [[Court of Appeal]] did not share the High Court’s view, nor the [[trustee]]’s timidity to acceleration. It thought that an [[acceleration]] notice, where there was no actual [[event of default]], would be of no ‘legal effect’, and did not therefore cause an effective (but wrongful) acceleration. | |||
Therefore, concluded their Lord Justices, there could be no possible legal action against the trustee and hence, it needed no indemnity, ignoring the age old riposte from those who seek indemnities everywhere<ref>Namely that if there's no risk of being called to indemnify THEN YOU SHOULDN’T MIND GIVING US AN INDEMNITY SHOULD YOU?</ref> | Therefore, concluded their Lord Justices, there could be no possible legal action against the trustee and hence, it needed no indemnity, ignoring the age old riposte from those who seek indemnities everywhere<ref>Namely that if there's no risk of being called to indemnify THEN YOU SHOULDN’T MIND GIVING US AN INDEMNITY SHOULD YOU?</ref> | ||
====House of Lords==== | ====House of Lords==== | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
* | *{{casenote|AP Picture Houses|Wednesbury}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
__NOTOC__ |