www cornell law edu
The case Re Zl Ltd [2006, dealt with the compulsory liquidation of a company. The parties were in litigation, which culminated in an agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the applicant company (" the Company ") was obliged to inform the defendant EUR 500,000. This sum was to be paid in four equal installments of 125,000 euros on December 31, 2005, June 30, 2006, December 31, 2006 and June 30, 2007.

After the conclusion of the agreement on the person and the company director manages a workable business relationship, and the defendant subsequently ordered more luxury goods from the Company. These contracts would be in exchange for some relief in respect of sums which, under the agreement.

The goods ordered were as follows:

- A new Ferrari 612 for 250,000 euros;

- A clock for EUR 40,000;

- A BMW M6 for 125,000 euros;

- A special edition Ferrari Scaglietti for EUR 300, 000, and

- A Mercedes SLK.

Thereafter, the defendant signed a petition against the dissolution of the company. The petition alleges that the sum of EUR 375.000, that was the balance remaining after the unification. The company argued that no amounts were up to the defendant, and for an order restraining the defendant from proceedings further with the petition. The company also claimed that the procedure will be.

The company was the case that the defendant's goods, payment for which it has been agreed off against the amount of EUR 500,000 under the agreement.

The defendant took the following:

- The Ferrari 612 was to be supplied outside the agreement on the basis that it was a gift;

- The offset is invalid, because according to Article 3.5 of the agreement, amendment, changes or cancellations to the agreement was only valid if agreed in writing and signed by both parties;

- The BMW and the clock was by the defendant in lieu of installment payments and

- The Ferrari Scaglietti and the Mercedes SLK in favor of the defendants for a fee of EUR 40,000.

The request was approved.

It was noted that the resolution in order not be made if a company really has a debt disputed on substantial grounds. A creditor whose debt is denied on these grounds is not an appropriate legal situation, a dissolution petition. In this case it was found that it was impossible to say that the evidence was so overwhelming that the company had failed to create a genuine dispute about the main reasons, without an examination of the evidence in the main proceedings.

It is a genuine dispute on substantial grounds for the indebtedness on which the petition was based were made. It followed that the presentation of the petition should be restrained and in the petition should be Struck out.

Please contact us for more information on the assessment of damage caused by termination of the contract on enquiries@rtcoopers.com

Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_corporatecommercial.php

© RT Coopers, 2007. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.

Full-service commercial law firm based in the City of London, specializing in Commercial and Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, Commercial Lawyers, Commercial Law, Commercial Contracts, commercial solicitor, commercial law firm, corporate lawyers, corporate lawyers, corporate law firm , due diligence, mergers and acquisitions, management buy-outs, white wash, sale of shares, the sale of the business visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_corporatecommercial.php