Justice Derrington issued freezing orders against various parties as requested, upon seeing some arguable basis for the plaintiff’s allegations that:
- the first defendant’s directors engaged in deliberately misleading conduct to induce the plaintiff to invest funds
- significant, wilful misinformation also aided the investment
- the plaintiff still owned the money transferred to the first defendant
On 3 June, the plaintiff urgently applied for relief through specific court orders. The plaintiff was concerned about whether the first defendant’s administrators would allow it to vote in its capacity as a creditor during the administration and would treat its claim as subordinate under s 563A of…
