International Corporate Rescue
Journal Issues
- Vol 1 (2004)
- Vol 2 (2005)
- Vol 3 (2006)
- Vol 4 (2007)
- Vol 5 (2008)
- Vol 6 (2009)
- Vol 7 (2010)
- Vol 8 (2011)
- Vol 9 (2012)
- Vol 10 (2013)
- Vol 11 (2014)
- Vol 12 (2015)
- Vol 13 (2016)
- Vol 14 (2017)
- Vol 15 (2018)
- Issue 1
- Issue 2
- Issue 3
- Issue 4
- Issue 5
- Issue 6
- Vol 16 (2019)
- Vol 17 (2020)
- Vol 18 (2021)
- Vol 19 (2022)
- Vol 20 (2023)
- Vol 21 (2024)
- Vol 22 (2025)
Vol 15 (2018) - Issue 4
Article preview
Citibank NA, London Branch v Oceanwood Opportunities Master Fund and others [2018] EWHC 448 (Ch)
Beth Cunniffe, Associate, and Katharina Crinson, Senior Knowledge Lawyer, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, London, UKSynopsis
- The High Court looks at a disenfranchisement provision preventing a noteholder who 'controlled' an issuer from having its vote counted for the purpose of giving enforcement instructions.
- The High Court determined that the requisite level of control must be pervasive and come from the 'Noteholder’s side of the Issuer/Noteholder divide'.
- The judgment emphasises the importance of taking a commercial approach to contractual interpretation and provides helpful guidance on the determination of de facto control.
Buy this article
Get instant access to this article for only EUR 55 / USD 60 / GBP 45
Get instant access to this article for only EUR 55 / USD 60 / GBP 45
Buy this issue
Get instant access to this issue for only EUR 175 / USD 230 / GBP 155
Get instant access to this issue for only EUR 175 / USD 230 / GBP 155
Buy annual subscription
Subscribe to the journal and recieve a hardcopy for
EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 560
Subscribe to the journal and recieve a hardcopy for
EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 560
If you are already a subscriber
log In here
log In here
Copyright 2006 Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Limited. All rights reserved.
