AGR meaning

What are the practical implications of this case? This notable judgment addresses three discrete themes of particular significance. First, it revisits the Harman undertaking, which prohibits collateral use of documents obtained on disclosure in civil litigation. Deploying materials produced on disclosure in Australian proceedings to support an anti-suit injunction in England constitutes a breach of that obligation. Second, it assesses the duty of full and frank disclosure on without notice and short notice applications, together with the limited circumstances in which the court may properly exercise its discretion not to set aside an order procured in breach of that duty of full and frank disclosure. Finally, the decision offers a considered treatment of the doctrines of actual and ostensible authority, in a scenario where a company seeks to place reliance on engagement letters executed by a separate entity within the same corporate group. What was the background? Greensill Bank AG (GBAG) is a bank incorporated in Germany and forms part of the Greensill Group. It...

In this issue: Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Financial institutions R&I in Scotland International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Personal insolvency Statutory demands withstand challenge to ‘on demand’ terms (Murfet v Property Lending) The appeal failed and Chief ICC Judge Briggs’s decision remained in place, refusing the bids by Mr Murfet and his mother to set aside statutory demands issued by the respondent lenders. The ruling emphasises the weight given to precise contractual language, confirming that where borrowing is stated to be repayable ‘on demand’, the courts will ordinarily hold parties to that bargain. Consequently, borrowers who accept such provisions—or do not secure alternative wording—will face an uphill struggle persuading a court to later adjust or ‘mend’ the agreement. See News Analysis: Statutory demands withstand challenge to ‘on demand’ terms (Murfet v Property Lending), by Samuel Parsons, barrister at...

In this issue: UK NSI Act UK mergers UK private actions EU State aid Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Caselex Competition Highlights 2024/2025 UK NSI Act The Cabinet Office has varied the Final Order under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 concerning FTDI Holding Limited’s proposed acquisition of an 80.2% stake in Future Technology Devices International Limited. Although the transaction was prohibited on 5 November 2024, the change simply resets the deadline for FTDIHL to submit a draft proposal plan to support compliance with the Final Order. There are no other alterations to the divestment process or its timetable—see the notice of final order variation The Cabinet Office has revoked the Final Order under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 relating to Trina Solar UK Investments Limited’s acquisition of 50% of AGR-Trina BF Holdco Limited. The deal was conditionally cleared on 10 October 2024...