Bank Notes

  • Home
  • News
  • Administration
  • Agency and Mandate
  • Bonds and Notes
  • Cheques and bills
  • Companies
  • Confidentiality
  • Consumer credit
  • Contract
  • Conversion
  • Data Protection
  • Default and demand
  • Documentary credits
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Financial Services Regulation
  • Fraud and economic torts
  • Guarantees and indemnities
  • Hire and asset finance
  • Injunctions
  • Insurance
  • Joint and vicarious liability
  • Limitation
  • Mistake
  • Money Laundering
  • Negligence and Advisory Liability
  • Partnership
  • Procedure
  • Receivership
  • Security
  • Trust and Accessory Liability
  • Unjust enrichment


V - Variation


22/4/13

AZEVEDO v IMCOPA IMPORTACAO EXPORTACAO E INDUSTRIA DE OLEOS LTDA [2013] EWCA Civ 364

Where the terms of loan notes could be varied with the consent of 75% of noteholders attending a meeting, approved changes to postpone interest payments and the maturity date could not be challenged on the ground that the issuer which had proposed them had offered a payment to noteholders voting in favour as an inducement.  The making of the payments was not subject to the pari passu principle because they had not come from funds held by the trustees of the scheme.  Nor were they bribes as they were fully disclosed and available to all voting in favour.