The Caribbean Court of Justice has dismissed an appeal brought by LOP (Land of Plenty) Investments Limited against Demerara Bank Limited,[url=http://www.wholesalenfljerseyssale.us@#$%&/]Cheap NFL Jerseys[/url], Garrett Ward and Ramon Gaskin.And the dismissal comes with costs to be taxed and the order of the Guyana Court of Appeal being affirmed.The factual background to the case surrounds two debentures issued by LOP to Demerara Bank to secure advances totalling $100 M made by the Bank to the company.The Company had defaulted on its obligations to repay the sums borrowed and the Bank acting under the powers contained in the debenture deeds appointed Ward to be the receiver of LOP?s assets which consisted of a rice mill and rice lands at Land of Plenty on the Essequibo Coast. However, Ward withdrew as receiver and Gaskin was then appointed by the Bank in his stead.LOP subsequently filed a writ in the High Court challenging the validity of the appointment of the receivers and the actions taken by Gaskin pursuant to his appointment. The Bank countered by filing a writ against LOP complaining of the alleged unlawful interference by the company with the process of receivership and sought an injunction and damages.The actions were consolidated and at the trial in the High Court, where Justice Winston Moore issued declarations that the two debentures issued by LOP in favour of the bank were good, valid and subsisting security; that the appointments of Ward and Gaskin under the debentures were valid in law and that the current receiver, Gaskin, was entitled to take possession of the charged assets of the company and to discharge his other duties as receiver under the debenture.Justice Winston Moore also ordered LOP to pay Gaskin damages in the sum of $350,[url=http://www.wholesalenfljerseyssale.us@#$%&/]Wholesale Jerseys China[/url],000 for obstructing him in the execution of his duty as receiver.LOP, as a result, took the matter to appeal and the Guyana Court of Appeal comprising Justices of Appeal Charles Ramson, B.S. Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards, dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court of Appeal had in fact rejected an application by LOP to appeal to the CCJ. The company successfully applied to the CCJ for special leave to appeal.The President of the CCJ,[url=http://www.cheapjerseysfan.us@#$%&/]Authentic Jerseys Cheap[/url], Justice Michael De La Bastide in exercising the Court?s discretion to grant special leave to appeal, pointed out that there was a need for an authoritative statement by a final court as to how debentures fit into the mixed system of Roman-Dutch law, common law and statute law in Guyana.He declared that regardless of the outcome of the appeal, it would be of benefit both to the legal profession and the commercial sector in Guyana to have definitive answers to some of the questions raised in the appeal.At the hearing of the appeal before the CCJ,[url=http://www.nfljerseyscheaponline.us@#$%&/]Wholesale NFL Jerseys Online[/url], Mr Sanjeev Datadin and Mr Derek Alli appeared on behalf of LOP and Mr Vidyanand Persaud and Ms Vidushi Persaud represented the bank. The appeal was argued before the full bench of the CCJ with the President of the Court, Justice De La Bastide sitting together with Justices Nelson, Pollard,[url=http://www.cheapjerseysshare.us@#$%&/]Wholesale NFL Jerseys[/url], Saunders, Bernard, Wit and Hayton.The unanimous decision of the Court was delivered by Justice Hayton who commenced by pointing out that a Bank or other financial institution is usually happy to lend significant sums of money to a company so long as it has security for the loans.The CCJ noted that the Guyana Court of Appeal heaped scorn on the submission of Counsel for LOP that the effect of the Civil Law of Guyana Act was to require any security provided for in a debenture to be passed before the Registrar of Deeds as in the case of a conventional mortgage for it to be valid and enforceable.The two debentures were clearly intended to take effect as secured debentures under the Companies Act and not as conventional mortgages under the Deeds Registry Act. Effect should be given to the terms of the debentures in particular to the powers of the receiver and the powers under the irrevocable power of attorney contained within the debenture deed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice Moore and dismissed LOP?s appeal with costs.In the CCJ judgment the terms of the debenture deeds were set out in detail and the powers conferred in the instrument by LOP upon any receiver who may be appointed by the Bank, including power to sell the charged assets, were highlighted.The CCJ endorsed the view of the Court of Appeal and of Justice Moore that the receiver Ward, and then Gaskin, were acting within his powers when improperly obstructed by LOP.The CCJ also found that each debenture was a formal agreement by LOP for security to be given to Demerara Bank, adequately identifying the particular property of LOP that was to be security for the specified loaned money that LOP was obliged to repay with interest.In conclusion, the CCJ noted that the Companies Ordinance 1913 and the Companies Act 1991 provide regimes for companies to create charges to secure their borrowings,[url=http://www.nfljerseyscheaponline.us@#$%&/]China Jerseys Online[/url], the charges being perfected after due registration.It was also pointed out that companies are assumed to be fully capable of looking after their own interests, while in the interests of the ready availability of finance for the company borrowers, lender to them need to have efficient remedies to enforce their security.The Companies Act recognises and endorses the commercial practices of lenders having extensive powers and remedies for them to realise their security without time taking and expensive Court proceedings.