LENA GOLDFIELDS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 42, 17 August 1935, Page 21

LENA GOLDFIELDS

SCHEME FOR PAYMENT

The affairs of Lena Goldfields, Ltd., were mentioned to Mr. Justice Eve in the Companies Court recently, says the "Daily Telegraph." There was a petition for the compulsory winding-up of the v company, and a petition by the company for sanction to a scheme for the allocation of the ,£3,000,000 to be paid by the Soviet Government for the .' confiscation of the company's property, and an application for discovery. Both petitions were opposed. Mr.- Gavin Simonds, K.C., for the company, on the petition for sanction to the scheme, said that evidence in opposition had been put in, and he did not propose to answer it, but he did wish to "cross-examine petitioners in the winding-up petition. The only other matter outstanding was the application for discovery of documents. Inspection had been given of a considerable number of documents which it was thought might be of assistance to the Court, but it was considered not right to give discovery on other matters outside the scope of inquiry by an opposing creditor. Mr. Justice Eve: What is the nature of the criticism of the scheme? Mr. Gavin Simonds: I ihink the broad criticism is this: The'scheme of arrangement is. undoubtedly an unusual one in the respect that it provides something for the shareholders before the creditors are satisfied in full. That is unusual, but we will submit that it is fully justified by the circumstances. GERMAN CREDITORS. Mr. Simonds added that another matter upon which a great deal of discovery was invited was this: Germans who had supplied the 'company with large quantities of machinery were creditors for a very large sum, and it was a question of very great difficulty as to what was the sterling amount of their debts. For the purpose of voting upon the scheme the chairman allowed them to vote for the amount of their claim, although it might be to some extent reduced. ; The opponents of the scheme wanted discovery so, as to whittle down the amount of the vote. He (counsel) protested against anything of -that kind being allowed. Another discovery asked for was an examination of the proxies to see to what extent noteholders who voted for the scheme were shareholders. :■ He did not take a strong line on this point, but he did think that any inquiry would be singularly inconclusive. Mr. C. J. Radcliffe, K.C., for petitioners on the winding-up petition, said that the summons for discovery was bj them. Certain discovery had been given, and he was willing that no order should be made on the application until the scheme was heard. Mr. F. K. Archer. K.C.,. for noteholders, said that there was nothing before the Court to show the views of a person who was a noteholder only and not also a shareholder. He urged that it would be impossible to deal with the scheme for that reason. Mr. Justice Eve fixed a later date for the hearing of the petition to sanction the scheme and. of the winding-up petition.