When a company being wound up in a given jurisdiction, an anti-suit injunction can be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction in view of securing an unjustifiable priority in the liquidation. Such was the scope of the Privy Counsel's decision of 26 November 2014 in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) [2014] UKPC 4 in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework. Facts Fairfield Sentry Ltd ("Fairfield"), a mutual fund incorporated in the BVI, was the largest feeder fund of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS"). Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds ("Shell"), a Dutch …show more content…
As the Attachments did not create any proprietary interest the Board found that the assets to which they relate should be included in the mandatory statutory trust resulting from the BVI winding up order; (b) the equitable jurisdiction of the court to uphold statutory distribution: Based, inter alia, on the case of Carron Iron Company Proprietors v Maclaren (1855) 5 HLC 415 the Board considered that the granting of the sought injunction was justified where a creditor invoked a foreign jurisdiction to bypass the statutory scheme of distribution. It considered that failure to do so would "disturb the general principle of equal distribution which the court is always anxious to enforce". Exercising the Anti-Suit Jurisdiction The Privy Council found that the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought should be exercised
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
3. The respondent, Mr Stephen Barker, had been employed by the appellant, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, for a number of years before being made redundant in March 2009 as a result of the bank restructuring the Corporation Financial Services (“CFS”) teams throughout the bank. He was informed that his employment with the bank would be terminated if he wasn’t redeployed within four weeks, but in the meantime had to turn in keys, mobile phone, and his access to his company email account, voicemail, and intranet was cut off and as such he did not receive any of the numerous emails that were sent to him about different openings for redeployment. His employment with the bank was terminated after the four week (plus an extra week for being over the
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
Between 1763 – 1776, the relationship between the American colonists and the British changed drastically, as tensions rose dramatically. Economic Impact The British had depleted all financial resources to defeat the French during the French and Indian War, “she [Great Britain] was left with a debt of £137 million, over half of the budget going towards interest payments, and a garrison force in America, which cost £384,000 a year to maintain.” Footnote: Francis D. Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History, (London: Routledge, 2000), 27.
Corporate Domination in Political Culture: An Analysis of “Dividing Citizens United: The Case v. The Controversy” by Lawrence H. Tribe Corporations have become an influential source of political financing as a result of the controversial 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which stated that corporations are protected under the First Amendment to spend unlimited sums of money in support of campaign advertisements, so long as they are not directly connected with any political candidate (Murray Digby Marziani 1). In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, by allowing corporations to use general treasury funds for unlimited political advocacy, the Court overturned several financial precedents, in addition to allowing for-profit corporations to conduct financial affairs in secret through the use of independent expenditures (Groonwald 1). The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling represents an unjust and unpatriotic view of American politics, which has led to severe corruption through the use of electioneering communications, secret money, and independent expenditures.
Heading: - Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 (1984) II. Facts & Procedural History - In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police.
United States v. Miller Kalyn Reading The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller. “On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Westover v United States: In Kansas City, Westover was arrested as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. The FBI received a report that Westover was wanted in California on a felony charge. The night of the arrest and the next morning, Westover was questioned by local police. FBI agents also interrogated Westover for two and a half hours at the station. Westover signed two statements, which were prepared by one of the agents during the questioning, to both California robberies.
On the topic of Loyalists, we your humble advisors, believe that your Royal Highness should maintain safety and enhance loyalty within the colonies. While protecting Loyalists might anger rebels, providing security within the colonies will benefit your government and position in society. To ensure this system stays, we propose several suggestions. To maintain safety within the colonies, we your humble advisors, propose several proposals. We believe that Your Highness should place British officials in the colonies to monitor unacceptable behavior.
In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
Legislation Attorney-General (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Company (Ltd) 1955 92 CLR 130 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Law Enforcement (Powers And Responsibilities) Act 2002
US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.
Case Brief Title & Citation: 1. Kent V United States 2. 383 U.S. 541 (1966) The Facts: The police detained and questioned 16-year old Morris A. Kent Jr., in connection with several incidents involving theft by force and rape. After admitting to having some involvement, the juvenile court canceled its legal control, allowing the court to try Kent as an adult.
Abstract This article critically considers whether Equity has developed and is now more determinate in relation to the propositions involved in the quote made by Professor Matthew Harding. To fully consider this topic, the article is going to look at the views of different judges and commentators as well as discussing the relevant case law. The article will talk about conscience, equitable maxims, and imperfect gifts. The fusion theory will also be mentioned to determine if Equity is as certain as Common Law.