We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 141

When does a Cross-Border Merger qualify as a merger by absorption?

  • Wedlake Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 25 2014

In a recent decision, the High Court looked at the question whether a merger qualifies as a merger by absorption under the Companies (Cross-Border

Court considers estoppel by acquiescence and contractual interpretation of ‘purpose’

  • RPC
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 11 2014

In Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding BV1, the claimant, Starbev GP Ltd (Starbev) and defendant, Interbrew Central European Holding

Court considers estoppel by acquiescence and contractual meaning of 'the purpose'

  • RPC
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 10 2014

In Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holding BV claimant Starbev and defendant Interbrew Central European Holding a subsidiary of Anheuser

Averil Finn - a fatal change of control for EIS purposes

  • Burges Salmon LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 22 2014

When two EIS companies merge it isn't possible to structure the transaction without one of them losing its EIS relief. The Enterprise Investment

Euroresourcedeals and debt - April 2014

  • Jones Day
  • -
  • United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • April 30 2014

With the maturity date of its Facilities Agreement approaching and without the means to repay the outstanding obligations in full, Apcoa needed to

Red-card penalty!

  • Stamford Law Corporation
  • -
  • Singapore, United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 17 2014

Penalty clauses are unenforceable under both English and Singapore law. A distinction has traditionally been drawn between liquidated damages clauses

US Supreme Court rules arbitrators, not courts, have competence to decide preconditions to investment arbitration

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • Argentina, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • March 11 2014

The United States (US) Supreme Court's recent ruling in BG Group v. Argentina generally reflects a pro-investor approach to interpreting

After the whistle is blown: conducting an investigation while protecting reputation

  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 4 2014

A whistleblower claims that a contract was awarded to your organisation as the result of a bribe. What do you do now? And when do you alert the

Financial Ombudsman Scheme: only one bite of the cherry

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 17 2014

The long-awaited judgment in Clark v In Focus was handed down at the Court of Appeal on 14 February, allowing the appeal. What this means is that

Material adverse change - focus on Turkey

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • Turkey, United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 5 2014

The recent dramatic decline in the value of the Turkish Lira (the Turkish currency has lost about 10 percent since mid-December) as well as the