Welcome to the latest edition of Corporate and commercial disputes review.
In this edition, we feature several emerging trends which are of key interest to our corporate clients in all industries. We focus on M&A disputes, claims against parent companies for the actions of their subsidiaries and the latest developments in relation to legal professional privilege.
A further, and perhaps surprising, trend is the recent run of cases concerning intention to create legal relations. We look at attempts to argue that binding contracts have been entered into in informal settings and lessons that this may have for the conduct of business.
We also review three recent Supreme Court decisions on the scope of professional negligence liability.
We examine the balance between public interest and commercial exploitation in the context of protecting shareholder information.
Finally, we examine new procedures for expedited arbitrations and the extent to which they will be appropriate for corporate disputes, and consider the topic of anti-suit injunctions.
In this issue:
Recent M&A disputes have covered not only breach of warranty, indemnity and price adjustments issues, but also tax covenants and claims of fraud.
In two recent cases, the Court of Appeal has considered important questions about when a parent company can be liable for the actions of its subsidiary.
A claimant alleging professional negligence will need to consider whether it will be able to establish loss which is legally recoverable from the defendant.
The point at which an investigation becomes sufficiently adversarial to constitute “litigation” for litigation privilege purposes has long been a grey area.
This article examines three cases that considered the basic principles of contract formation in the context of informal discussions and meetings.
Where is the balance to be struck between the public interest in knowing who owns a company and protection of the personal information of those who do?
The decision in Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Ltd v Ghossoub provides a useful reminder of the discretionary nature of anti-suit injunctions.
To address the need for time and cost-efficient dispute resolution, most arbitral institutions have adopted a fast track option in their arbitration rules.