Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal
英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献
ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter
澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文
小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法
英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查
temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语
经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目
日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题
职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意
论文作者:留学生论文论文属性:案例分析 Case Study登出时间:2011-04-11编辑:zn1987点击率:5282
论文字数:1613论文编号:org201104111343387340语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:免费论文
关键词:Corporate insolvencyCreditorsJerseyJoint ventures
The court also noted the breadth of the discretion conferred on it by art.143, namely to “… make suchorder as it thinks fit for giving relief in respect of the matters complained of …”, as well as a number ofdicta of some force from recent jurisprudence in support of s.459 being given a wide scope.
The court acknowledged the well-established rule that a shareholder cannot petition for a winding-uporder to be made in respect of an insolvent company, since it could not obtain any benefit from the process (qua shareholder at least). However, it rejected an argument that similar reasoning should apply in an art.141 or s.459 context. The nature of the proceedings is very different. As an insolvent liquidation is a public act that would affect the interests of all creditors, it seems right to limit standing to those members with a financial interest in the process. An application for relief for unfair prejudice does not have this public quality, being an internal matter concerning the relationship between management and particular shareholders, and thus there is no need to restrict standing in this way.
However, although the court did not accept that a grant of relief had to benefit an applicant in itscapacity as shareholder, it stressed that where the only purpose of an application is to seek paymentto the relevant company, there must be some “real financial benefit” to be derived by the applicant.Consequently, the court recognised that where relief did not benefit an applicant qua shareholder,relief could justifiably be refused in many cases. Shareholder desire to seek a better return for acompany's creditors, and any reputational benefit that might result, are insufficient to provide locusstandi in themselves.
The court noted that the loan capital appeared to have been provided to B by G's parent company,not G itself, and thus the identities of the shareholder and loan creditor were technically separate.However, following the approach taken in R&H Electric Ltd v Haden Bill Electrical Ltd,2the courtconcluded this should not bar art.141 relief as the loans were procured by G and were an essentialpart of the joint venture arrangements.
As a preliminary issue, the court considered whether a cause of action allegedly vested in B (i.e. anaction by *Insolv. Int. 142 the company against its directors) could be prosecuted in an unfairprejudice action and an order made for damages to be paid to B, not G as applicant. The courtagain noted the broad language of art.143, as well as a decision of the Hong Kong Court of FinalAppeal that held that the court did have the power to make such an order. As no reasons wereprovided as to why that case should not be followed, the court held that no objection could be raisedat that strike out stage.
Comment
On its facts, the outcome of the case appears sensible. The court placed particular emphasis on thefact that B was a joint venture company and that G provided a “package” of debt and equityinvestment in pursuance of an agreement with K. In these circumstances, where debt is provided“pursuant to” and “for the purposes of” a joint venture, it has the nature of quasi-equity. It seemsreasonable that s.459 should protect a joint venture party in respect of all such interests, being closelyconnected to his shareholding, as well as the value of his equity stake. As the court noted, the ambitof s.461 (in this case, 本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。