翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Re T&D Industries plc
・ Re the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill
・ Re Therrien
・ Re Tottenham Hotspur plc
・ Re Transbus International Ltd
・ Re Tuck's Settlement Trusts
・ Re Umberto (Turin Metro)
・ Re Umberto-class ironclad
・ Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd
・ Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd (No 2)
・ Re Voltere
・ Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally
・ Re West Sussex Constabulary's Widows, Children and Benevolent (1930) Fund Trusts
・ Re Wragg Ltd
・ Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd
Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd
・ Re!
・ Re'eh
・ Re'em
・ Re'em Ha'Cohen
・ Re'im
・ Re, Norway
・ Re, Piedmont
・ Re, Sogn og Fjordane
・ Re-ac-tor
・ Re-act
・ Re-Active destocking
・ Re-Align
・ Re-amp
・ Re-Animated


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd : ウィキペディア英語版
Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd

''Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd'' () Ch 148 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable floating charges for past value. It holds that a floating charge can harden when it secures a debt in an overdraft account, when the bank keeps the facility open as a company takes money out and puts money in.
==Facts==
The liquidator of Yeovil Glove Co Ltd, a glove manufacturer in Yeovil, sued National Provincial Bank Ltd to rescind a floating charge taken within 12 months before insolvency. The bank's floating charge was to secure Yeovil Glove's overdraft, which (on top of debts of £94,000 to other unsecured creditors) had grown to £67,000 when the bank took fixed security and then as money was still unpaid, a floating charge. Over the next year, Yeovil Glove paid £111,000 and drew out (through cheques written to other people that the bank was honouring) £110,000. At the time the Insolvency Act 1986 section 245 (formerly Companies Act 1948 section 322) read that a floating charge was voidable ‘except to the amount of any cash paid to the company at the time of or subsequently to the creation of, and in consideration for, the charge.’ The bank argued that because more money had been paid out of the account than was covered by the charge (albeit that new debts were run up) the charge was not voidable. As in ''Clayton's case'', money going into an account is presumed to discharge the last debt first. So money had been advanced to the company to a greater extent than the charge, and the turnover of money converted the old value given into new value.
Plowman J held that the ability to make drawings after was good consideration for the charge.

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 Yeovil Glove Co 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.