Welcome to the Autumn 2018 issue of our Resolve publication
Ukraine v Law Debenture: Foreign Politics and Sovereign Debt in the English Courts
The English Court of Appeal has recently decided a case about sovereign debt. Russia holds the debt - bonds with a face value of US$ 3bn, issued in December 2013. In 2014, Russia seized the Ukrainian province of Crimea and backed separatists in a civil war in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine's economy almost collapsed. It defaulted on repayment of the bonds in 2015.
High Court blocks data privacy opt out group action against Google
Lloyd v Google  EWHC 2599
The High Court has, for the time being at least, dealt a blow to the prospect of large scale US-style 'opt out' class actions in data protection cases. However, the decision of Mr Justice Warby (which is likely to be appealed) may turn out to be confined to the facts of this particular case.
The impact of the Court of Appeal's decision in ENRC on regulatory lawyers
There has understandably been a lot of interest in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal regarding legal professional privilege in Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited  EWCA Civ 2006. Addleshaw Goddard published an article shortly after the decision was handed down, which can be found online here. The decision is of general importance to the law of privilege, but in this follow-on article, we consider its impact specifically on internal and regulatory investigations and the lawyers who work on them.
Judgment creditor's claim against director who asset stripped company post judgment is barred
Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd  EWCA Civ 1468
The Court of Appeal has for the first time applied the rule against reflective loss to claims by creditors. The rule had in the past only been used to prevent claims by shareholders against directors, where the losses claimed by the shareholders reflected those suffered by the company.
New appointments to the UK Supreme Court: a far cry from Kavanaugh
The recent confirmation of a new judge's appointment to US Supreme Court was remarkable, for all the wrong reasons. The US Senate's committee hearings and vote, confirming the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh (Republican President Donald Trump's nominee), took place in a poisonous political atmosphere. Democratic Party senators' calls for investigation of allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh appeared to be as much about trying to delay a vote until after the mid-term elections, as they were about finding out what really happened. There was little room for debate about Kavanaugh's judicial qualities or legal achievements.
Quick updates for those dealing with disputes
Our quick updates in this issue include recent cases on: Legal advice privilege – iniquity exception; Default judgment where acknowledgement filed late and more.