Luxembourg court 'understands opponents of BCCI settlement'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A Luxembourg court - which last week ordered Brian Smouha and the other Touche Ross liquidators of BCCI to seek the approval of unsecured creditors for the proposed Abu Dhabi-backed compensation agreement - believed 'the benefits of the proposed settlement are not sufficiently certain to permit the court to impose it upon the creditors'.
A translation of the judgment obtained by the Independent says Abu Dhabi's dollars 1.7bn contribution 'cannot be regarded as generous', alongside the liabilities. The insufficiency of the contribution was the creditors' 'major and fundamental criticism'.
The court said it understood the concerns of creditors who opposed the plan: 'They believe they have been duped by the management put in place by the majority shareholders (the Abu Dhabi authorities), if not by the majority shareholders themselves; they are concerned they are giving up too cheaply rights of action against the majority shareholders'.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments