82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}A case which doesn’t, despite appearances, row back on the excellent principles uncovered in {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, but rather validates them. | {{cn}}A case which doesn’t, despite appearances, row back on the excellent principles uncovered in {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, but rather validates them. | ||
Crowther | {{casenote|Crowther|Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd}} turned on whether private bankers Arbuthnot, who had (rather cluelessly) lent Crowther €5.9m secured on a £4m property, could withhold its consent to the sale of that property. | ||
The relevant clause provided: | The relevant clause provided: | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Arbuthnot said (per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}) it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: if they had thought their loan would be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have not have made it without asking for a bigger spread on the interest. | Arbuthnot said (per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}) it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: if they had thought their loan would be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have not have made it without asking for a bigger spread on the interest. | ||
The problem with this argument was that this is exactly what Arbuthnot ''had'' done: By common agreement the property was never worth more than £4m, even when Arbuthnot advanced the loan. | The problem with this argument was that this is exactly what Arbuthnot ''had'' done: By common agreement the property was never worth more than £4m, even when Arbuthnot advanced the loan. Schoolboy error from the [[Stupid banker|private bankers]] here. Nor did Arbuthnot have any evidence that the property value had slumped, nor that there was much sign it was likely to rally. | ||
Waksman QC decided that Arbuthnot ''had'' unreasonably withheld consent: why, he asked, should Arbuthnot be entitled to insist on anything more than the sale of a property at a fair price? Arbuthnot’s stated reason for withholding consent seemed to be to secure more collateral, thereby correcting the bad bargain they had made in the first place. | Waksman QC decided that Arbuthnot ''had'' unreasonably withheld consent: why, he asked, should Arbuthnot be entitled to insist on anything more than the sale of a property at a fair price? Arbuthnot’s stated reason for withholding consent seemed to be to secure more collateral, thereby correcting the bad bargain they had made in the first place. |