Adam Johnson QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, gave judgment earlier this week in Dinglis v Dinglis [2020] EWHC 1363 (Ch). The case arose in direct response to the coronavirus pandemic and in the context of ongoing proceedings for unfair prejudice under sections 994-996 of the Companies Act 2006. At issue was the date set for the valuation of the petitioner's shares, 25 July 2019, and how the valuation on this date would be conducted. The trial judge concluded: [1] there was no basis for varying, directly or indirectly, the valuation date; [2] notwithstanding the broad jurisdiction under section 996, it was not possible to argue - as a matter of law or principle - that adjustments on account of the Coronavirus pandemic should be taken into account.
Thursday, 4 June 2020
UK: England and Wales: unfair prejudice, valuation dates and coronavirus
Adam Johnson QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, gave judgment earlier this week in Dinglis v Dinglis [2020] EWHC 1363 (Ch). The case arose in direct response to the coronavirus pandemic and in the context of ongoing proceedings for unfair prejudice under sections 994-996 of the Companies Act 2006. At issue was the date set for the valuation of the petitioner's shares, 25 July 2019, and how the valuation on this date would be conducted. The trial judge concluded: [1] there was no basis for varying, directly or indirectly, the valuation date; [2] notwithstanding the broad jurisdiction under section 996, it was not possible to argue - as a matter of law or principle - that adjustments on account of the Coronavirus pandemic should be taken into account.
No comments:
Post a Comment