Tag: Litigation

Cryptocurrency Litigation Success: Assessing Compensatory Damages in Lieu of an Injunction for Specific Performance

We successfully represented a client in a significant cryptocurrency loan dispute. On 2 July 2024, the High Court handed down a judgment varying the valuation date for assessing damages in lieu of specific performance. Initially, the County Court had set the valuation date at the breach in 2019, which did not account for the significant increase in Ethereum’s value.

HMRC's Abuse of Process Winding-up Petition Defeated Injunction

Case Study: £0.5m HMRC Winding-up Petition Defeated

HMRC consented to the dismissal of a £0.5m winding-up petition against our client company, conceding their petition and agreeing to pay substantial costs. Our solicitor and counsel team successfully argued HMRC’s actions, including account freezing and misrepresentation, were an abuse of the proper process of the Companies Court. This case highlights the repercussions for all, including UK Government agencies, that engage in unjustified petitions.

no win no fee solicitor uk funding litigation barrister opinion cfa dba damages claim

Litigation Funding in England & Wales (Legal Services Board Report)

A litigation funding report for the Legal Services Board evaluates UK litigation funding. It finds such funding can improve access to justice, facilitate consumer interest cases, and support a healthy legal market. However, it identifies the problems of highly limited, highly selective funding, potential cost tensions, and the need for robust AML controls.

Bridging loan litigation UK Bridging loan dispute UK Bridging loan misrepresentation UK Bridging loan solicitor UK Bridging loan lawyer UK

UK Bridging Loans: Fast Cash for Significant Risk?

Unregulated bridging loans are a short-term financing solution often used by UK property owners. Whether for swift property purchases, renovation projects, or addressing unexpected business costs, bridging finance can provide quick access to capital. However this is at significant cost and risk which some borrowers don’t understand. You must carefully consider the risks associated bridge loans. Seeking professional advice is crucial.

FRL TBL Fixed Rate Loan Compensation Claims Solicitor

Short Guide: ‘Hidden’ or ‘Embedded’ Swaps

UK financial institutions have been selling interest rate swaps and fixed-rate loans without fully disclosing the risks and contingent liabilities involved, leading to substantial liabilities for customers. Lexlaw, a law firm specialising in hidden derivatives litigation, advises on legal action for SMEs and individuals affected by mis-selling. They guide clients through obtaining redress, often achieving out-of-court settlements with banks and insurers eager to avoid precedent-setting judgments. Lexlaw provides a step-by-step guide for those suspecting they’ve been mis-sold financial products, encouraging prompt legal advice to meet claim deadlines.

Companies Act 2006 Section 994 Petitions litigation solicitor shareholder london uk

Court of Appeal Decides s.994 Petitions Subject to Statutory Limitation Period

In a significant shift, the Court of Appeal determined that unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 have a 12-year statutory limitation period, reversing previous beliefs and affecting future legal approaches to such claims. This ruling, THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 158, changes the legal landscape for minority shareholder disputes, requiring a reevaluation of existing strategies and the potential for earlier claims.

lukoil litasco sanctions trade force majeure litigation lawyers solicitors barristers in london uk

Court Dismisses Force Majeure & Trade Sanctions Control Defences

The High Court, in its decision on Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm), clarified the application of force majeure and the “ownership and control” test under UK sanctions law. It emphasized that significant difficulty, nearly impossible to overcome, is necessary to invoke force majeure for debt obligations. The ruling further established stringent criteria for proving “control” in relation to sanctioned entities, highlighting the necessity for actual influence over business decisions, rather than theoretical possibilities, to satisfy this condition. This decision provides a clearer framework for businesses handling contracts under these terms.