|
|appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = |italic title = }} ''Hague v Nam Tai Electronics'' refers to a pair of legal decisions of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands. The first was a unanimous decision given by Lord Hoffman, reported at () UKPC 52,〔(''Hague v Nam Tai Electronics Inc & Others'' ) () UKPC 52〕 which focussed upon the anti-deprivation rule and secured creditor's rights. The second was a unanimous decision given by Lord Scott, reported at () UKPC 13,〔(''Hague & Anor v Nam Tai Electronics'' ) () UKPC 13〕 and concerned the liability of a company liquidator. The second decision was much more widely reported. Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry sat on both appeals, but neither gave a judgment in either of them. Separately in the saga, there was also a third application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council on another point, but leave was refused.〔That related to an application by Nam Tai to remove Mr Hague as liquidator of Tele-Art Inc., see (''Hague & Anor v Nam Tai Electronics'' ) () UKPC 13 at paragraph 2.〕 ==Background== Nam Tai Electronics Inc. was a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands under the International Business Companies Act and whose shares were listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It was carrying on business principally in China. Mr Robert Yuen and one of his associated companies, Tele-Art Inc. (also incorporated in the British Virgin Islands), collectively owned 823,635 of the issued shares of Nam Tai. On 10 November 1993 Mr Yuen and Tele-Art Inc. each executed deeds which created a security interest over their shares in Nam Tai in favour of the Bank of China as security for the obligations of Tele-Art Limited (a Hong Kong subsidiary of Tele-Art Inc.) to the bank. On the very same day, 10 November 1993, an Irish government agency obtained a judgment against Tele-Art Inc. for US$799,079. However it appears that no steps were taken to enforce that judgment debt. Just under three years later, Tele-Art Limited defaulted on its obligations and on 5 August 1996 the Bank of China called on the security provided by Mr Yuen and Tele-Art Inc. This in turn led to an unusual chain of events as Mr Yuen and Tele-Art Inc. furiously fought to resist the bank's attempts to enforce its collateral. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hague v Nam Tai Electronics」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|