Sentences with phrase «assets of the defendants»

Other notable cases included: acting for a US company in a High Court claim arising from the disposal of a UK subsidiary; acting for court - appointed receivers in the recovery of billions in assets of a defendant in High Court proceedings; and advising corporate clients on anti-bribery and corruption issues and investigations.

There may be a number of reasons for this; you may have agreed Ontario as the forum for the dispute, the assets of the defendant may be located in Ontario, or there may be other concerns about the applicable law or enforceability of a judgment from your local jurisdiction.

In SFC Litigation Trust v. Chan, 2017 ONSC 1815, the Divisional Court recently confirmed that worldwide Mareva injunctions may be used to freeze the assets of defendants present in Ontario even when they otherwise have no assets in the province.

The police obtained restraint orders over the assets of the defendants.

Assets of the defendant to which the claimant had no proprietary claim whatever were to be frozen to constitute a source from which the claimant could hope to satisfy the money judgment that, in the substantive proceedings, he hoped to obtain.

Not exact matches

Christopher M. Sulyma filed a lawsuit on behalf of two proposed classes of participants in the Intel 401 (k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, claiming that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments through custom - built target - date funds.

Sulyma brought six claims: claims I and III allege the Investment Committee defendants breached their fiduciary duties by over-allocating the assets of the 401 (k) Plan and Retirement Plan to hedge fund, private equity, and other alternative investments.

The lawsuit claimed the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments through custom - built target - date funds.

Plaintiff Christopher M. Sulyma, on behalf of two proposed classes of participants in the Intel 401 (k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments.

Moreover, the same order from Judge Zobel also froze assets related to three relief defendants: Kimberly Renee Benge, Barbara Crater Meeks, and Erica Crater, all of whom have been linked to the company and whom allegedly received customer funds «without providing any legitimate services to clients and without any interest or entitlement to such customer funds.»

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

After release of the escrow funds, the Company has remaining claims of approximately R$ 2.8 million that will be pursued against assets held by the defendants in Brazil

Although the EFCC in two separate letters to the Federal Government through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation had in 2015 and 2016 cleared Umar of any wrongdoing in the alleged N10 million bribery allegation made against him by a defendant, Rasheed Taiwo Owolabi standing trial before him on false asset declaration.

The Federal Government had on January 18, 2018 filed a suit marked FHC / ABJ / CR / 4/2018 containing two counts of failure of the defendants to declare their assets «without reasonable excuse and upon the notice to declare» them before the panel.

He averred that there was imminent risk of the defendants dissipating the assets of the companies, and had urged the court to issue a restraining order.

«Did the asset declaration forms of 1999 and 2003 show the first defendant to be a pauper, a person who has no means or worthless?»

This Section V.F shall not prohibit a Settling Defendant from communicating (a) in a manner and through media consistent with common and reasonable industry practice, the cover prices or wholesale or retail prices of books sold in any format to potential purchasers of those books; or (b) information the Settling Defendant needs to communicate in connection with (i) its enforcement or assignment of its intellectual property or contract rights, (ii) a contemplated merger, acquisition, or purchase or sale of assets, (iii) its distribution of another E-book Publisher's E-books, or (iv) a business arrangement under which E-book Publishers agree to co-publish, or an E-book Publisher agrees to license to another E-book Publisher the publishing rights to, one or more specifically identified E-book titles or a particular author's E-books.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: (1) Barnes & Noble's Nook e-book reader sales had dramatically declined; (2) the Company would shutter its Nook manufacturing operations altogether; (3) the carrying value of the Nook assets were impaired by millions of dollars; (4) the carrying value of the Nook inventory was overstated by $ 133 million; (5) the Company was expecting fiscal 2014 retail losses in the high single digits; (6) Barnes & Noble had over-accrued certain accounts receivables; (7) Barnes & Noble was unable to provide timely audited financial results for fiscal 2013; and (8) the Company might be forced to restate its previously reported financial results.

All assets under the defendants» control are frozen by an emergency court order and Lanzana and Masanko are prohibited from «destruction or concealment of their books and records».

While these companies are only coughing up $ 4,500, the FTC noted the full judgment of $ 2.3 million will be due immediately if it turns out that the defendants misrepresented their current financial assets.

It has been winding it's way through the courts since 2003 and it was filed by Andrew and Kelly Zimmerman against John and Richard Puccio (the defendants), Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp., Cambridge / Brighton Budget Planning Corp., Brighton Credit Management Corp., Cambridge Credit Corp., Brighton Credit Corp., Brighton Debt Management Services, Ltd., Brighton Credit Corp. of Massachusetts, Debt Relief Clearinghouse, Ltd., Cypress Advertising and Promotions, Southfork Asset Management Corp., and First Consumers Credit Management Corp..

The complaint says this pattern of failing to leverage the assets and negotiating power of the Principal CITs to demand the lowest - cost vehicle and share class was not limited to the Diversified International Fund — for eleven of the thirteen investments held by the Principal CITs, Defendants failed to use the least expensive vehicle, failed to use the least expensive share class, or both.

The defendant's grandfather made a number of testamentary changes transferring most of his assets between 2007 - 2008, prior to his death that same year.

None of the evidence they used demonstrated that the Grigorishin Defendants were in fact dissipating assets.

A risk of dissipation basically means that, if left unrestrained, a defendant is likely to either hide or transfer away his assets so that the applicant can not enforce a judgment against those assets.

To support this, the team has wide experience in search and seizure orders, freezing injunctions, proprietary injunctions and other options to gain competitive advantage in a litigious situation and prevent the dissipation of a defendant's assets.

The purpose of these post-judgment remedies is to seize assets belonging to the defendant so those assets can be sold and the money applied to satisfy the judgment.

The Mareva injunction is the best tool available for victims of fraud by ensuring that a defendant's assets do not vanish before a plaintiff can collect on a judgment.

FCA has reported that the defendants in its case against Capital Alternatives have been ordered to pay compensation and that it has obtained new undertakings from or injunctions against some of the defendants to protect against the risk of dissipating or diminishing assets.

Sometimes, the value of a wrongful death claim is determined by the defendant's liability insurance coverage or his or her assets.

It was thought that it was contrary to this spirit of «full faith and credit» (in Morguard's words, sort of) and administrative simplicity to allow defendants to wait in the bushes while the original court held a trial — even in default of appearance — and then attack jurisdiction only when the judgment came to be enforced in a place where the defendant had assets.

A restraint order was made against their client's assets and the question arose as to whether or not the defendant was entitled to the # 5,000 on account of the fact that at the time the restraint order was made their fees were already in excess of that amount.

A damages award or an injunction is enforceable against any asset or operation of the defendant no matter the province or territory.

We have litigated a number of D&O coverage disputes involving the application of the insured versus insured exclusion, the availability of rescission remedies, the treatment of policy proceeds as an asset of a bankruptcy estate, allocation disputes between insured and noninsured defendants and claims, disputes over the application of «prior and pending» and / or «related claim» provisions, and late notice defenses.

During the course of litigation, Laiken obtained a very broadly worded ex parte Mareva order freezing the assets of Sabourin and other named defendants which included enjoining any others «with knowledge of this Order» to «prevent the sale, disposition, withdrawal, dissipation, sale, assignment, dealing with, transfer, conveyance, conversion, encumbrance or diminishment» of the assets, specifically including money held in «trust accounts».

«I am not prepared to adopt, as the defendant's argue, a blanket principle that an Ontario court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a common law action to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment against an out - of - jurisdiction judgment debtor in the absence of a showing that the defendant has some real and substantial connection to Ontario or currently possesses assets in Ontario... No jurisprudence binding on me has expressly placed a gloss on that ability to assume jurisdiction by requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the non-resident judgment debtor defendant otherwise has a real and substantial connection with Ontario.»

The trial judge accepted the proposal of O'Hara's counsel that the defendants be allowed to select one of three alternative forms of relief viz., (1) that Sales Leadership transfer all its assets to Junior Sales, or (2) that all the shares of Sales Leadership be transferred to Junior Sales, or (3) that twenty shares of Sales Leadership be transferred to O'Hara.

«In light of the economically significant relationship between Chevron and Chevron Canada, and given that Chevron Canada maintains a non-transitory place of business in Ontario, an Ontario court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a recognition and enforcement action against Chevron Canada's indirect corporate parent that also names Chevron Canada as a defendant and seeks the seizure of the shares and assets of Chevron Canada to satisfy a judgment against the corporate parent.»

• JJW Ltd v IBRC Asset Finance Ltd (2017), in relation to an application by the Defendant to strike out the Claimant's claim for c. # 150 million, arising out of alleged breaches of an # 82 million loan agreement.

Represented third - party defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in suit claiming fraud in connection with failed asset - backed securities and seeking over $ 100 million in damages.

The financial crisis then helped to cover the defendants» tracks, since given the global reduction in asset values IPO investors understood that they had bought at the top of the market.

A defendant, who jointly with others is found to have obtained a benefit from his offending, should ordinaryily have a confiscation order made against him for the total amount found to have been fraudulently obtained, provided he has realisable assets equal to or in excess of that amount.

Clearly, a significant percentage of this property settlement was liquid assets which were available to [the defendant], and upon which investment income was available and expected.»

A freezing order can be sought at any time in order to prevent a defendant from disposing of assets before enforcement.

The plaintiff argued that all of the corporate defendants were, in essence, one in the same: their assets are intermingled, they hold the same directing minds and the same shareholders, they share common employees and they are all operated as one inseparable business endeavor, known as «Tony Graham Automotive».

The judge had been entitled to make orders debarring a defendant from defending the claims brought against him unless he surrendered himself and made proper disclosure of his assets.

(21) BTA Bank v. Ablyazov (CA)[2011] Bus LR 119 An order appointing receivers of a defendant's assets was rightly made since there was a measurable risk that the defendant would deal with his assets in breach of a freezing order.

Where a defendant's assets are subject to a POCA restraint order, defence solicitors will identify the grounds on which the terms of the order can be varied, or where appropriate apply for it to be discharged, so that the impact on the reputation and financial situation of the defendant is minimised.

We don't often hear about hidden assets in personal injury lawsuits, but that's because the majority of defendants aren't independently wealthy.

If punitive damages are awarded, they are rarely covered by insurance, and can only be collected from the personal assets and income of the defendant perpetrator.