Examples of Nortel GmbH in a sentence
However, as is clear from the strikingly wide words of rules 13.12(1) and (3) and 12.3(1), the statutory policy, which Briggs J rightly identified at first instance in In re Nortel GmbH [2011] Bus LR 766, paras 102-103, and which is supported by the Supreme Court in the same case at [2014] AC 209, paras 92-93, is that claims should, if at all possible, be admitted to proof rather than being excluded from proof.
Transonic Flow on AdvancingThrustBladeNoiseShock waveAeroelastic ResponseUnsteady Aerodynamics Ψ=0°Tip vorticesΨ=90°Main Rotor/Tail Rotor/Fuselage Flow InterferenceBlade-tip vortex interactionsΨ=180°Ψ=270°Dynamic Stall on Retreating side DynamicStall on RetreatingBladeBlade-TipVortex interactionsV∞Figure 1.2: Multiple Limitation Factor Occur During Fast Cruising Flight [9].
In that connection, it was accepted in the courts below and by the parties that the guidance given in In re Nortel GmbH [2014] AC 209, para 77 applies.
Recently invoked examples include the anti-deprivation principle (see Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2012] 1 AC 383), the rule against double-proof (discussed in In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) (No 2) [2012] 1 AC 804, paras 8 to 12), the rule in Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 4 My & Cr 442 (also discussed in Kaupthing (No 2) [2012] 1 AC 804, paras 13 to 20), and certain rules of fairness (alluded to in In re Nortel GmbH [2014] AC 209, para 122).
The most obvious examples are claims which only arise after the date a company goes into administration or liquidation (see In re Nortel GmbH at [2014] AC 209, para 35), such as damages for personal injury in an accident which occurred after that date.
They still include statutory liabilities arising after the cut-off date by virtue of events occurring before: In re Nortel GmbH [2014] AC 209.
In support of his submission that a costs order can be conceptualised as a liability coming into existence from the moment litigation commences, Mr Seah relies on the UK Supreme Court’s decision in In re Nortel GmbH (in administration) and related companies [2013] 3 WLR 504 (“Nortel”).
This contention is based primarily on Lord Neuberger’s comments from Re Nortel GmbH [2014] AC 209, in which he stated that the statutory ranking could not be overridden by the Courts.
The most authoritative word on this subject is the judgment of Lord Neuberger in Re Nortel GmbH [2013] UKSC 52.
By: Name: Title: EXHIBIT A EMEA Debtors Nortel Networks UK Limited Nortel Networks International Finance & Holdings BV Nortel Networks (Austria) GmbH Nortel Networks S.R.O. Nortel Networks S.p.A. Nortel Networks NV Nortel Networks Polska Sp. z.o.o. Nortel GmbH, Nortel Networks BV Nortel Networks Slovensko s.r.o. Nortel Networks Romania Srl Nortel Networks Portugal, S.A. Nortel Networks AB Nortel Networks Hispania S.A. Nortel Networks OY Nortel Networks Engineering Service Kft.