Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd

Last updated

Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameCukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd
Decided30 January 2013
Citation[2013] UKPC 2
Case history
Prior actionsCukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Anor [2008] EWHC 2567(Admin) (29 September 2005)
Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v. Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd [2009] UKPC 19 (5 May 2009)
Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd v Cukurova Finance International Ltd et al, HCVAP 2009/001 (16 September 2009).
Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd v Cukurova Finance International Ltd et al, HCVAP 2008/012 (28 September 2009).
Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Ors v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd [2012] UKPC 20 (23 May 2012)
Appealed fromAlfa Telecom Turkey Ltd v Cukurova Finance International Ltd. Et al, HCVAP 2010/018, 2010/024 (Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court 20 July 2011).
Subsequent actionsCukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v. Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd [2013] UKPC 20 (9 July 2013)
Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd [2013] UKPC 25 (29 July 2013)
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Neuberger
Lord Mance
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption

Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd [2009] UKPC 19 (5 May 2009), P.C. (on appeal from British Virgin Islands), [2012] UKPC 20 (23 May 2012), [2013] UKPC 2 (30 January 2013), [2013] UKPC 20 (9 July 2013), [2013] UKPC 25 (29 July 2013) and [2014] UKPC 15 (13 May 2014) were a series of judicial decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, one of which ([2013] UKPC 2) is a leading case on the remedy of appropriation for security interests that was introduced into United Kingdom law under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003, [1] which implemented the Financial Collateral Arrangements Directive. [2] Together with its related appeals on preliminary and subsequent issues, it has defined the scope of the remedy, as well as what equitable relief may be available.

Contents

The case came before the Privy Council on no less than six separate occasions. The case has been called "the British Virgin Islands equivalent of Jarndyce v Jarndyce ". [3]

Background

Introduction of the appropriation remedy

Before 2003, English law provided that, other than the rules relating to self-dealing, there was no rule in equity which precluded a lender from stipulating for any collateral advantage, provided that the stipulation was not:

  1. unfair or unconscionable,
  2. in the nature of a penalty clogging the equity of redemption, or
  3. inconsistent with or repugnant to the right to redeem. [4]

As a result, for both legal and practical reasons, the use of foreclosure as a remedy has fallen into disuse. [lower-alpha 1] Even where a mortgagee seeks an order for foreclosure from the courts, the courts will frequently order judicial sale of the property instead.

In 2002, in an effort to standardize the rules relating to financial collateral arrangements [lower-alpha 2] and to "[provide] for rapid and non-formalistic enforcement procedures in order to safeguard financial stability and limit contagion effects in case of a default of a party to a financial collateral arrangement", [7] the European Union adopted Directive 2002/47/EC, which provided for a remedy of appropriation (already available in the civil law). [8] It also stated that those countries that did not allow such a remedy (i.e., the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland) on the Directive's adoption were not obliged to recognize it. [9] All 25 EU member states advised that they would implement the provision, [10] as it was seen as a significant component of the EU's Lisbon Strategy. [11]

The Directive called for mandatory application to agreements between parties that were public sector bodies, supervised financial institutions, central counterparties, settlements and clearing houses. Member states were allowed to extend it to persons other than natural persons, provided that the other party to such agreements were one of the mandatory parties already covered. [12] In its implementing Regulations, the United Kingdom opted to extend this remedy to all companies, provided that the arrangement in question allowed for the use of such remedy. [13] [lower-alpha 3]

Facts of the case

In September 2005, Çukurova Holding AS, a large Turkish company, through its subsidiary Cukurova Finance International Ltd ("CFI"), borrowed US$1.352 billion from Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd ("ATT", part of the Russian Alfa Group). The debt was secured in part by an equitable mortgage, governed by English law, over CFI's 51% interest in a British Virgin Islands company that indirectly held a controlling interest in Turkcell, [lower-alpha 4] the leading cellular network in Turkey. The facility agreement for the debt provided for appropriation to be an available remedy in the event of default.

In April 2007, ATT advised CFI that, in its view, there had been events of default under the agreement, and it demanded immediate repayment in full of the outstanding amount of the loan. CFI did not repay the full amount by the specified date, and ATT sent a letter to CFi stating that it had appropriated the pledged shares of the BVI company. CFI then gave five days' notice that it wished to pay the remaining amount owing under the agreement, which was accordingly tendered. ATT rejected the tender, CFI placed the funds in an escrow account, and litigation was commenced in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.

Preliminary issues

A Turkcell mobile base station. Turkcell Mobile Base Station.jpg
A Turkcell mobile base station.

Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

The defendants raised a preliminary issue as to how a party validly exercised a right of appropriation in law. This preliminary issue would eventually be appealed all the way to the Privy Council, and was the first ever hearing in relation to how one exercised the right. Cukurova alleged that because the companies never updated their share registers to record a change of title to the shares, then no valid appropriation could have taken place.

In November 2007, after hearing opposing expert evidence on English law (which, in the BVI courts, is treated as foreign law) from Lord Millett and Professor Ross Cranston the BVI court held that Alfa had not in law validly appropriated the shares. [14] The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal allowed Alfa's appeal in April 2008, concluding that it had lawfully appropriated the shares. [15] Cukurova received permission to appeal the decision to the Privy Council.

At the Privy Council (2009)

In May 2009, the Board dismissed the appeal and ruled that, as a matter of English law:

  1. Appropriation is much closer to sale than it is to foreclosure. It is in effect a sale by the collateral-taker to himself, at a price determined by an agreed valuation process. [16]
  2. It is not necessary, for a valid appropriation, for the collateral-taker to become a registered holder of the shares. [17]
  3. Commercial practicalities require that there should be an overt act evincing the intention to exercise a power of appropriation, communicated to the collateral-provider. [18]

Administrative Court (England and Wales)

Separately, Cukurova applied to the English Administrative Court to seek permission to impugn the 2003 Regulations on the grounds that they were ultra vires the authority granted under the European Communities Act 1972 , as they extended the Directive's application beyond its contemplated purpose. [19] Permission was denied, as the Court held that there was little chance that the application would succeed:

[The Regulations] integrate the provisions of the Directive within existing provisions in domestic law, which regulates financial collateral arrangements without distinction as to personal scope. Were it not for the widened scope of the Regulations, two parallel but distinct systems would be in operation. [20]

It was not possible for Cukurova to separately challenge the validity of the Regulations in the legal proceedings before the BVI courts because of the principle of the conflict of laws that the courts of one jurisdiction will not rule on the validity of laws in another jurisdiction under the act of state doctrine.

Main judgment

Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

Following the 2009 ruling, the matter where was returned to the British Virgin Islands commercial court where it came up for hearing before Justice Bannister QC, who held that no event of default had in fact occurred to justify the exercise by ATT of its remedies as secured creditor. [21]

That decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal proceeded to consider the main appeal of the original trial judgment, with regard to:

It held that:

  • an event of default had taken place, and it was enforced by a valid appropriation of shares, [23]
  • ATT was not guilty of any bad faith relating to the facility agreement. [24]

Cukurova appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal, contending that: [25]

  1. they were wrong to decide that ATT had established any event of default, but, if they were right, then
  2. ATT's acceleration of the loan and/or its appropriation of the charged shares was vitiated by bad faith or improper purpose, and, if that argument fails,
  3. Cukurova should be accorded relief from forfeiture.

At the Privy Council (January 2013)

In its main ruling, the Board held:

  1. One event of default was made out, [26] and it was unnecessary to consider any of the others. [27]
  2. The trial judge's findings afforded no basis for treating the appropriation of the charged shares as ineffective, [28] and that was enough to decide this particular issue. [29]
  3. "[R]elief from forfeiture is available in principle where what is in question is forfeiture of proprietary or possessory rights, as opposed to merely contractual rights, regardless of the type of property concerned." [30]
  4. While "the present case involves a combination of unusual features which are most unlikely to be repeated," [31] nothing in the Regulations precludes the availability of relief against forfeiture. In principle it remains available following the appropriation by ATT of the charged shares. [32]

Before issuing a final order, it called for a further hearing to determine in what conditions such relief may be given. [33]

Subsequent rulings

Nature in which relief may be given (9 July 2013)

The Board ordered that payment amounting to about US$1.565 billion be made by Cukurova to ATT within 60 days of its ruling, consisting of principal, related interest and costs, less dividends earned by ATT during the period of litigation. They divided, however, by 3-2 as to the nature of the principles involved.

Lord Mance, joined by Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke, considered the extent to which equity could provide a remedy in this case:

The question is whether equity has any power to identify particular circumstances making it, exceptionally, inequitable or unconscionable to insist on redemption taking place on a basis which treats the loan as if it had remained continuously outstanding to date. In the Board's view, equity has such a power, albeit only exercisable in exceptional circumstances such as the present. [34]

He identified nine areas where it could: [35]

  1. There is a distinction in practice between a situation where an extension of time to redeem is being sought while a loan remains outstanding and a situation like the present where the loan has been discharged at law by appropriation.
  2. In origin, equity's intervention in aid of mortgagors after forfeiture appears to have been based on general considerations of equitable conscience, rather than the (later) rationalisation that time was not to be treated as of the essence.
  3. There are close similarities between the equitable relief available in respect of mortgages and leases.
  4. The object of the court when granting relief is to put the lessor (as well as the lessee) back in the position in which he would have been if there had been no forfeiture.
  5. The Board cannot accept that equity must ignore such matters, and is trapped within a conceptual framework which requires it to be assumed that the loan has remained continuously outstanding until the date of court ordered relief, whatever and however exceptional the circumstances of and after the appropriation.
  6. The tender is directly relevant to the running of interest.
  7. It is of some interest to look at equity's response to tenders or offers of repayment which are refused or do not, for other reasons involving the lender's fault, lead to actual repayment. In a number of such cases, the court has held, on equitable rather than legal grounds, that the mortgagor was as a result relieved of any obligation to pay interest.
  8. Where there is a contractual right to the costs, the discretion should ordinarily be exercised so as to reflect that contractual right. The power of the court to disallow a mortgagee's costs sought to be added to the mortgage security is a not a statutory power, but from the power of courts of equity to fix the terms on which redemption will be allowed.
  9. The importance of certainty is not confined to common law contexts, but extends to equitable contexts.

In summary, he stated:

Nevertheless, the Board emphasises that it is in no way suggesting that equity recognises any general or open-ended discretion. The Board's reasoning and decision in this case are based on and confined to what it sees as an exceptional situation, in which it would, in the Board's view, be both inequitable and unconscionable to ignore the background and circumstances of the tender made on 27th May 2007 and to treat the grant of relief as conditional upon the loan reviving and remaining outstanding for six years as if nothing would have or had ever happened in the meanwhile. The unusual facts of this case are in this respect probably unlikely to be repeated. [36]

Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption disagreed with the majority view that "the question what the borrower must pay to get relief from forfeiture cannot depend only on the contract." [37] They held that equity relieves on the ground that:

  1. the forfeiture of the borrower's property for what may be a trivial and rectifiable breach is penal,
  2. the true intention of the parties is that the property should stand as a security only, and
  3. the borrower is in principle entitled to redeem the charge over his property even after the security has been enforced.

Accordingly, "What equity does not do, in the minority's opinion, is relieve from the other terms of the contract which are not penal. It follows that those terms of the contract determine what the debtor must do if he is to be relieved from the forfeiture." [38]

Variation of order (29 July 2013)

As a result of proceedings arising in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, [lower-alpha 5] Cukurova applied to the Privy Council, in a fourth hearing before the Board, to have the final order varied to provide for:

  • an extension of time in order to comply with the requirement to pay the Redemption Sum;
  • a determination in relation to the sum identified in paragraph 4 as to whether interest is payable during that period, and if so at what rate;
  • other variations of certain terms, so as to avoid any problem arising from the injunctions granted by the New York Court.

The Board was not impressed with ATT's contentions that relief should not be given, observing:

The allegations of CH's disposal and non-disclosure of assets to avoid paying Sonera appear on the face of it to be made out, but that is res inter alios acta . [47]

Accordingly, it ruled that: [48]

  1. justice would be best served by time being extended generally without a cut-off date, on terms that both parties have liberty to apply.
  2. the running of interest at the rate of 8% p.a. over Libor should be suspended as from the end of 29 July 2013 (that is, 19 days after the Order in Council) on the ground that CH and CFI are currently being prevented from redeeming within the 60-day period envisaged by the Order in Council due to the positive actions of ATT, or taken by ATT in the name of Sonera and in its own interests.
  3. because the precise nature of any order, if that indication does not come to fruition, is difficult to formulate at this stage, the Board will simply give liberty to apply as to machinery.

Extension of time (5 February 2014)

ATT later applied for a cut-off date for the payment. In February 2014, the Board decided that the current suspension of the payment deadline should be continued until such time as the New York Court reaches its decision on the case before it. [49] [50]

Further hearing (18 June 2014)

Further proceedings occurred with respect to a proposed new charge by a new lender to Cukurova. While agreeing that several conditions proposed to Alfa appeared sensible (subject to certain modifications), the Board gave both sides until the end of July to take instructions, and allowed interest to continue to run during that time. [51] Both sides subsequently reached an agreement on the matter, which was approved by the Board in July 2014. [52] The agreement meant that Cukurova would be able to recover its investment in Turkcell. [53]

Impact

The entire litigation history in this case has been described as being similar to "a low-budget horror film" that "has given the legal world plenty to think about." [54] There was agreement that the case would continue to make new law. [55]

There has been doubt as to the Board's suggestion that the facts arising in Cukurova were "unusual features," and its intervention may have been motivated by the fact that the facility agreement in question did not give rise to a commercially fair valuation. [56] It remains to be seen whether the courts will take a robust approach in limiting Cukurova to its own facts, [56] as appropriation provisions have become increasingly common in financial documents. [57]

In its main judgment, the Board noted that in determining whether a material adverse change had arisen under the relevant clause in the facility agreement, "an event need not objectively have such an adverse effect: all that is required is that ATT believes that it has such an effect." [58] A more restrictive approach has since been adopted by the Commercial Court of England and Wales. [59]

Aftermath

The complex and turbulent dispute with regard to the control of Turkcell [60] has been supplemented by moves of the Turkish government in August 2013 to appoint directors to its board, which had lacked a quorum since 2010. This is seen as a move to keep Turkcell in Turkish hands, possibly through sale to a local investor. [61]

The 2003 Regulations were amended in 2010 [62] [lower-alpha 6] to extend the appropriation remedy to credit claims in addition to cash and financial instruments, and it will apply to all forms of security financial collateral arrangements. [lower-alpha 7] This effectively means that all charges, and not just mortgages, are covered. However, it is argued that the s. 17(2) framework for the remedy remains conceptually unsound and is unworkable with respect to situations involving chained holding of book-entry securities. [63]

In November 2015, the Supreme Court of New Zealand granted leave to appeal a ruling of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, [64] in a case involving possessory interests in resource consents granted under the Resource Management Act 1991 , in which it held that relief against forfeiture was available in such circumstances but it declined to exercise its discretion to grant it in that case. [65] In February 2016, it was announced that the appeal was being abandoned, and was therefore deemed to be dismissed. [66]

Further reading

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Foreclosure used to be a mortgagee’s primary remedy, but "it is now rarely sought or granted." [5]
  2. ↑ Financial collateral was defined as cash or financial instruments. [6]
  3. ↑ Ireland opted to cover only the mandatory and optional entities contemplated in the Directive, in the European Communities (Financial Collateral Arrangements) Regulations (S.I. No. 1 of 2004). Signed on 5 January 2004. Statutory Instrument of the Government of Ireland.Retrieved from Irish Statute Book.
  4. ↑ Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş.
  5. ↑ In a series of proceedings in New York and the British Virgin Islands, Sonera Holdings (part of TeliaSonera, and a co-owner of ATT) attempted to restrain Cukurova from granting security in the shares, Cukurova attempted to obtain an anti-suit injunction against Sonera and ATT, [39] and Sonera obtained a temporary restraining order in New York [40] [41] which prohibited Deutsche Bank (designated as ATT's bank for receiving payment from the escrow account) from accepting any payment in connection with the attempt by CH and CFI to redeem the shares (and forbidding DBAG from disclosing the order to CH or CFI). [42] The restraining order was subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in April 2014, [43] holding that , under Daimler AG v. Bauman, [44] Sonera lacked jurisdiction in the matter. [45] The United States Supreme Court denied Sonera's application for certiorari in June 2014. [46]
  6. ↑ consequential to the passage of Directive 2009/44/EC of 6 May 2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims
  7. ↑ with effect from 6 April 2011

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equity (law)</span> Set of legal principles supplementing but distinct from the Common Law

In the field of jurisprudence, equity is the particular body of law, developed in the English Court of Chancery, with the general purpose of providing legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve the disputed legal matter. Conceptually, equity was part of the historical origins of the system of common law of England, yet is a field of law separate from common law, because equity has its own unique rules and principles, and was administered by courts of equity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maxims of equity</span> Principles that govern the operation of equity within English law

Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims', it cannot be said that there is a definitive list of them. Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alfa Group</span> Russian international industrial and financial group

Alfa Group Consortium is Russian international privately owned investment groups, with interests in oil and gas, commercial and investment banking, asset management, insurance, retail trade, telecommunications, water utilities and special situation investments.

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

In finance, a security interest is a legal right granted by a debtor to a creditor over the debtor's property which enables the creditor to have recourse to the property if the debtor defaults in making payment or otherwise performing the secured obligations. One of the most common examples of a security interest is a mortgage: a person borrows money from the bank to buy a house, and they grant a mortgage over the house so that if they default in repaying the loan, the bank can sell the house and apply the proceeds to the outstanding loan.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies is a scholarly legal text originally composed by three Australian judges, Roddy Meagher, William Gummow and John Lehane. It is the preeminent publication on Equity in both Australia and England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian corporate law</span>

Canadian corporate law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

Financial law is the law and regulation of the commercial banking, capital markets, insurance, derivatives and investment management sectors. Understanding financial law is crucial to appreciating the creation and formation of banking and financial regulation, as well as the legal framework for finance generally. Financial law forms a substantial portion of commercial law, and notably a substantial proportion of the global economy, and legal billables are dependent on sound and clear legal policy pertaining to financial transactions. Therefore financial law as the law for financial industries involves public and private law matters. Understanding the legal implications of transactions and structures such as an indemnity, or overdraft is crucial to appreciating their effect in financial transactions. This is the core of financial law. Thus, financial law draws a narrower distinction than commercial or corporate law by focusing primarily on financial transactions, the financial market, and its participants; for example, the sale of goods may be part of commercial law but is not financial law. Financial law may be understood as being formed of three overarching methods, or pillars of law formation and categorised into five transaction silos which form the various financial positions prevalent in finance.

<i>Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd</i>

Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.

<i>Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd</i>

Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd, is a land law case, in which the Privy Council held that restrictions on the right to redeem a mortgage are void. The equity of redemption means that borrowers are able to sell or obtain new mortgage finance promptly and without impinging on other dependent transactions.

<i>Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership): Kensington v Liggett</i>

Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1994] UKPC 3 is an English trusts law case by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decision on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. It considers when there is sufficient certainty of subject matter to form a trust, and tracing. A company dealing in gold and other precious metals became insolvent and the Bank of New Zealand appointed receivers under a debenture. They in turn asked the High Court for guidance on how to treat the company's customers, and Thorp J refused the claims of most of the customers, leaving three categories to be settled on appeal. The outstanding issue was whether the customers had title to the gold on for them, and thus beneficiaries of a trust, or were merely unsecured creditors resulting from a breach of contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of the British Virgin Islands</span>

The judiciary of British Virgin Islands is based on the judiciary of the United Kingdom. The British Virgin Islands is a member state of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. The courts are organized at four levels, including the provision for final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i> UK legal case

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

In relation to corporate insolvency, modified universalism or modified universality is a legal concept relating to the general principle that national courts should strive to administer the estates of insolvent companies in the spirit of international comity. The broad concept is that it is desirable for cross-border insolvencies to be managed by a single officeholder as a single estate rather than a series of piecemeal and unconnected proceedings in different countries, and that this should be recognised globally. In practice, whilst many countries will recognise foreign bankruptcy proceedings, in many instances the courts have set some limits on the recognition of insolvency proceedings, such that the courts apply this principle of modified universality whereby the courts retain a discretion to assess whether the overseas proceedings are consistent with their own principles of justice and public policy. But, subject to that safeguard, the courts will generally defer to the proceedings which are regarded as the "main proceedings" for the purposes of getting in and distributing assets of the insolvent company. The principal is referred as to modified universalism in that it strives to find a balance between purely territorial bankruptcy systems, and entirely universal international bankruptcy system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Penalties in English law</span>

Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European company law</span>

European company law is the part of European Union law which concerns the formation, operation and insolvency of companies in the European Union. The EU creates minimum standards for companies throughout the EU, and has its own corporate forms. All member states continue to operate separate companies acts, which are amended from time to time to comply with EU Directives and Regulations. There is, however, also the option of businesses to incorporate as a Societas Europaea (SE), which allows a company to operate across all member states.

<i>Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi</i> English contract law case

Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi[2015] UKSC 67, together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, are English contract law cases concerning the validity of penalty clauses and the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. The UK Supreme Court ruled on both cases together on 4 November 2015, updating the established legal rule on penalty clauses and replacing the test of whether or not a disputed clause is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" with a test asking whether it imposed a proportionate detriment in relation to any "legitimate interest" of the innocent party.

<i>Reference Re Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act</i>

Reference Re Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the constitutionality of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act as part of the bankruptcy and insolvency jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

References

  1. ↑ "The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, SI 2003/3226 ("FCAR 2003")
  2. ↑ Directive 2002/47/EC of 6 June 2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on financial collateral arrangements
  3. ↑ Harney Westwood & Riegels (2014). British Virgin Islands Commercial Law (3rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. Preface to 3rd ed. ISBN   9789626615294.
  4. ↑ Jones v Morgan & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 995 at para. 92(28 June 2001), citing G&C Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1913] UKHL 1 , [1914] AC 25(20 November 1913)
  5. ↑ Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc [1993] Ch 330 at 336
  6. ↑ Directive 2002/47/EC, art. 1(4)
  7. ↑ Directive 2002/47/EC, Recital 17
  8. ↑ Directive 2002/47/EC, art. 4
  9. ↑ Directive 2002/47/EC, art. 4(3)
  10. ↑ EFMLG 2006, pp. 13–14.
  11. ↑ Ho 2011, p. 1.
  12. ↑ Directive 2002/47/EC, art. 1(2)
  13. ↑ FCAR 2003; s. 3 (definition of "non-natural person"), ss. 16–18
  14. ↑ BVIHC (COM) 72 of 2007
  15. ↑ [2008] EWHC 2567, par. 14
  16. ↑ [2009] UKPC 19, par. 27
  17. ↑ [2009] UKPC 19, par. 34
  18. ↑ [2009] UKPC 19, par. 35
  19. ↑ [2008] EWHC 2567, par. 16
  20. ↑ [2008] EWHC 2567, par. 101
  21. ↑ "Court rules on enforcement issues in Cukurova v Alfa". International Law Office. 20 July 2010.
  22. ↑ HCVAP 2010/018, 2010/024' par. 7
  23. ↑ HCVAP 2010/018, 2010/024' par. 17
  24. ↑ HCVAP 2010/018, 2010/024' par. 19
  25. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 40
  26. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 62
  27. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 67
  28. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 73
  29. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 78
  30. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 94
  31. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 125
  32. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 115
  33. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 126 and Annex
  34. ↑ [2013] UKPC 20, par. 15
  35. ↑ [2013] UKPC 20, par. 16–43
  36. ↑ [2013] UKPC 20, par. 44
  37. ↑ [2013] UKPC 20, par. 178
  38. ↑ [2013] UKPC 20, par. 179
  39. ↑ Sonera Holdings B.V v Cukurova Holding A.S, BVIHCM (COM) 2011/119 (16 May 2013).
  40. ↑ Sonera Holding B.V. v. Çukurova Holding A.Ş., 2013WL2050914 (S.D.N.Y.15 May 2013).
  41. ↑ Jay S. Auslander; Natalie Shkolnik (24 June 2013). "SDNY Issues an Anti-Suit Injunction to Protect Judgment Creditor's Right to Continue to Enforce a $932 Million Swiss Arbitration Award Confirmed by SDNY". Wilk Auslander LLP.
  42. ↑ [2013] UKPC 25, par. 9–13
  43. ↑ Sonera Holding B.V. v. Çukurova Holding A.Ş., 12-4280 (2nd Cir.25 April 2014).
  44. ↑ Daimler AG v. Bauman , 134S.Ct.746 (2014).
  45. ↑ "U.S. appeals court ruling frees Cukurova to pursue Turkcell buyback". Reuters . 25 April 2014.
  46. ↑ "Docket No. 13-1386". 30 June 2014.
  47. ↑ [2013] UKPC 25, par. 33
  48. ↑ [2013] UKPC 25, par. 35–37
  49. ↑ "Cukurova v Alfa Telecom Turkey". Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 5 February 2014.
  50. ↑ "Cukurova gets more time to pay in row over Turkcell stake". Reuters . 5 February 2014.
  51. ↑ "Further proceedings in Cukurova Finance International Limited and another (Appellants) v Alfa Telecom Turkey Limited (Respondents)". Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 18 June 2014.
  52. ↑ "Hearing vacated: Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd". Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 29 July 2014.
  53. ↑ Evrem Ballim (25 July 2014). "Turkey's Cukurova set to recover disputed $1.6 billion Turkcell stake". Reuters . Archived from the original on 6 March 2016.
  54. ↑ Colin Riegels (5 February 2013). "Alfa v Cukurova, Part VII". Harney Westwood & Riegels.
  55. ↑ Arabella di Iorio (2013). "Equity Steps in to Relieve from Appropriation under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations" (PDF). International Corporate Rescue. 10 (3). Chase Cambria: 182–185.
  56. 1 2 Levy & Warents 2014, p. 24.
  57. ↑ "Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd". 20 Essex Street.
  58. ↑ [2013] UKPC 2, par. 45
  59. ↑ Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL & Anor [2013] EWHC 1039(Comm) at para. 357(26 April 2013), noted in Scott R. Hyman; Carol D. Pennycook; Nicholas C. Williams (6 January 2014). "Material Adverse Change Clauses: Decoding a Legal Enigma". Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg. fn. 13.
  60. ↑ "The battle for Turkcell". The Economist . 21 April 2012.
  61. ↑ Daniel Dombey (16 August 2013). "Ankara wades in to resolve Turkcell deadlock". The Financial Times .
  62. ↑ "The Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality and Financial Collateral Arrangements) (Amendment) Regulations 2010", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, SI 2010/2993
  63. ↑ Ho 2011, pp. 55–56.
  64. ↑ Greenshell New Zealand Limited (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited [2015] NZSC 180 (24 November 2015)
  65. ↑ Hamm, Vanessa; Bailey, Bridget (November 2015). "Nature of a resource consent – the debate continues" (PDF). Resource Management Journal. Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc: 31–32. ISSN   1178-5462., discussing Greenshell New Zealand Limited (in receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited [2015] NZCA 374 (17 August 2015)
  66. ↑ "Case summaries 2015: SC 104/2015". courtsofnz.govt.nz. Courts of New Zealand. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.