| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Re Brightlife Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Re Brightlife Ltd
''Re Brightlife Ltd'' () 1 Ch 200 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning crystallisation of a floating charge. It held that an automatic crystallisation clause was part of the parties’ freedom of contract. It could not be limited by court created public policy exceptions. The significance of the case was largely outpaced by the Insolvency Act 1986 section 251, which said a floating charge was one that was created as a floating charge.
==Facts==
Brightlife Ltd had a charge over book debts in favour of Norandex, its bank. The charge said it was a ‘first specific charge’ and did not allow Brightlife to sell, factor or discount debts without written consent. A debenture holder gave the company a notice converting the floating charge into a fixed charge a week before a voluntary winding up resolution was passed. Counsel argued public policy required restriction on crystallising events, one reason being that an automatic crystallisation clause could take effect without knowledge of company or debenture holder. It could be prejudicial to a third party, because it does not get registered. Counsel referred to the Canadian case ''R v Consolidated Churchill Copper Corp Ltd'',〔() 5 WWR 652〕 where Berger J rejected the concept of a ‘self generating crystallisation’.
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「Re Brightlife Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|