Concord Trust v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc

Revision as of 18:41, 18 January 2017 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Concord Trust v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc'' [2004] EWCH 1216 (Ch); [2004] EWCA Civ 1001 In which the Court of Appeal considered the legal dynamics of bo...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Concord Trust v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc [2004] EWCH 1216 (Ch); [2004] EWCA Civ 1001

In which the Court of Appeal considered the legal dynamics of bond acceleration where the bond issuer disputed the purported acceleration. The central issue in this case was whether the trustee was entitled to call for an indemnity from the bondholders before accelerating the bonds. The issuer disagreed that an event of default had occurred and intimated that it would challenge the validity of any acceleration notice. The trustee feared[1] that it might face a substantial claim upon a disputed acceleration of the bonds.

The Court of Appeal did not share the trustee’s timidity to acceleration. It declared that an acceleration notice served where there was no actual event of default was 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[2]

  1. Trustees are fearful beasts, and will usually only do anything under cover of an indemnity
  2. Namely that if there's no risk of being called to indemnify THEN YOU SHOULDN’T MIND GIVING US AN INDEMNITY SHOULD YOU?