The claimant companies alleged that the defendants had used the claimant’s parent’s companies wrongfully to syphon off money from the claimants by interposing contract between the lcimants and their proper customers. In this action the claimant sought to pierce the corporate veil.
Judges:
Burton J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 333 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyds Law Reports 647, [2011] 1 CLC 396, [2012] BCC 182, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 293, [2012] 1 BCLC 561, [2011] Bus LR D117 [2011] Bus LR D117
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation and Others v Recoletos Ltd and Others ComC 24-May-2010
The claimants sought summary judgment in their claims alleging fraud by the several defendants.
Held: Gross J granted leave to the Corporate Defendants to defend only upon terms of (in effect) a payment into court of $40 million. . .
Cited by:
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.430288
