Rolled Steel Products (Holdings), Ltd. v. British Steel Corp.
England and Wales Court of Appeal, Civil Division
[1986] 1 Ch. 246, [1985] 3 All ER 52, [1985] 2 WLR 908, [1984] BCLC 466, [1982–85] BCC 99, 158, (48 MLR 109), (44 CLJ 39) (1984)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Alexander Shenkman and his family controlled Scottish Steel Sheet Ltd. (SSS), a private limited-liability company that owed a substantial debt to Colvilles Ltd. SSS did not have any assets, but Shenkman and his family also controlled Rolled Steel Products (Holdings), Ltd. (RSP) (plaintiff). When British Steel Corporation (BSC) (defendant) acquired Colvilles, BSC pressed Shenkman to satisfy SSS’s debt, leading RSP’s directors to approve a guarantee and debenture to BSC. Clause 3(k) of RSP’s memorandum of association provided that RSP was authorized to give guarantees or become security on terms that “may seem expedient.” RSP subsequently sued BSC and Vivian Cooper (defendant), seeking to invalidate the guarantee and debenture as ultra vires and seeking the return of money paid to BSC and Cooper thereunder. RSP argued that Clause 3(k) permitted guarantees and security only for proper corporate purposes and that BSC and Cooper knew that the guarantee and debenture in BSC’s favor did not qualify because they related to debt incurred by another company. The trial court ruled in favor of RSP. BSC and Cooper appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Slade, J.)
Concurrence (Lawton, J.)
Concurrence (Browne-Williamson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.