Home - International Litigation Blog
0
blog,paged,paged-13,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12.1,vc_responsive
 

international litigation blog

CJEU Rules on Lis Pendens Doctrine After Initiation of Interlocutory Proceedings

DownloadPrint

On 4 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) handed down a judgment interpreting and clarifying the rules on parallel litigation and lis pendens in trans-European civil and commercial litigation.

As you certainly know, parallel litigation and lis pendens refer to a situation that occurs when different legal proceedings relating to the same object and cause of action are brought between the same parties in the courts of different forums. In such a situation, in order to reduce concurrent proceedings before the courts of various Member States and to avoid irreconcilable decisions, Article 27 and following of the Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Regulation) provide that the first court seized with the dispute shall have the exclusive power to establish whether it is competent to rule on the particular dispute. It is only if this first court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the case that the other courts will regain the power to hear that case. However, if the court first seized has confirmed its jurisdiction then the other courts shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.

In the case at hand, the CJEU was asked to interpret Article 27 and following of the Brussels Regulation in order to examine whether interlocutory proceedings brought before the courts of one Member State pre-empted legal proceedings to be brought before the courts of the other Member States in a dispute involving the same parties and the same cause of action.READ MORE

0

U.S. Supreme Court in May… Arbitration and International Litigation Not Far Away

DownloadPrint

Spring and the month of May seem to have inspired the U.S. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) justices. In less than three weeks, the Supreme Court rendered three interesting opinions with respect to arbitration and international litigation:

  • Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. (on FSIA pleading standards);
  • Kindred Nursing Centers Partnership v. Clark (on whether state-law could require that a PoA expressly refer to arbitration agreements before an attorney-in-fact can bind his or her principal to an arbitration agreement);
  • Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon (on whether the Hague Service Convention allows service of process by postal channels).

READ MORE

0

CJEU’s Opinion 2/15: Consequences on ISDS and Investment Court System

DownloadPrint

On 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) delivered its long-awaited opinion (the Opinion 2/15) on the allocation of competences between the European Union (the EU) and its Member States for the conclusion of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (the EUSFTA).

As you may know, the core issue in this Opinion was whether the EU had an exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA and similar free trade agreements (FTAs) (meaning that the EU could act unilaterally on this issue) or whether the EU shared this competence with the European Member States.

Although the objective of this article is not to provide an in-depth analysis of Opinion 2/15 (for those interested, Van Bael & Bellis recently published a detailed memorandum on this topic), I wanted to share with you some thoughts on the impact of Opinion 2/15 on investor-State dispute resolution and on the Investment Court System (ICS).READ MORE

0

Belgian Constitutional Court Rules on State Immunity From Execution

DownloadPrint

In a judgment dated 27 April 2017, the Belgian Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court) largely confirmed the validity of the Belgian legal provision on State immunity from execution (Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code).

As a general rule, Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code provides that assets located in Belgium that belong to a foreign State are immune from execution and cannot be subject to enforcement proceedings by creditors. As mentioned before, France recently adopted a similar provision which largely mirrors Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code.

Exceptions to that rule are, however, possible if very strict conditions are met: a party wishing to seize the assets belonging to a State needs to obtain a prior authorisation from a judge (juge des saisies). This judge will only authorise the seizure if (i) the foreign State has “expressively” and “specifically” consented to the seizure of the assets; (ii) the foreign State has specifically allocated those assets to the enforcement of the claim which gives rise to the seizure; and (iii) the assets are located in Belgium and are allocated to an economic or commercial activity.

Given the difficulty of meeting those requirements, two entities (NML Capital Limited (NML), an American hedge fund which holds debts securities against Argentina, and Yukos Universal Limited (YUL), an entity that had been granted a multi-billion arbitral award against Russia) initiated legal proceedings before the Constitutional Court seeking the annulment of Article 1412quinquies of the Belgian Judicial Code.READ MORE

0

Paris Court of Appeal Endorses “Adverse Inferences” Principle

DownloadPrint

On 28 February 2017, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) rendered an interesting decision endorsing the “adverse inferences” principle provided for under Article 9(5) of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (the IBA Rules): “[i]f a Party fails without satisfactory explanation to produce any Document requested in a Request to Produce […] the Arbitral Tribunal may infer that such document would be adverse to the interests of that Party“.

The dispute at hand arose in the context of a share purchase agreement (the SPA) concluded between Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (the Buyer), a U.S. based company, and twelve Spanish companies (the Sellers) for the purchase of all shares in Grupo Guascor SL.READ MORE

0

Belgian Court Rules on Recognition of U.S. Class Action Settlements

DownloadPrint

On 23 March 2017, the Ghent Court of Appeal in Belgium (the Court of Appeal) handed down a lengthy decision on the civil merits in the very well-known Lernout & Hauspie (L&H) case. Although the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal is very long and covers various legal issues, it contains a specific section on the recognition, in Belgium, of two American opt-out class action settlements.

As most of you know, class action suits are legal devices that allow an individual or a small group of individuals to proceed in court on behalf of a much larger and unnamed group of individuals who have suffered a similar injury and who share common claims.

While class actions form an integral part of the legal framework in the United States, European jurisdictions (with the notable exception of the Netherlands (see my previous post)) tend to be very cautious with respect to this instrument. It is only in June 2013 that the European Union published a recommendation setting out a series of common, non-binding principles that EU Member States should adopt in order to put collective redress mechanisms in place. Based on this recommendation, some EU Members that previously did not allow for collective redress mechanisms have since introduced them into their legal systems.

In sharp contrast with the American class action system – where any individual who fulfils the conditions to be part of a class action will automatically be considered as part of the class bringing the action, unless that member expressively indicates his desire to be excluded from of the proceedings (i.e. “opt-out” system) – most European systems have adhered to an “opt-in” system where plaintiff classes are formed through the expressed consent of their members.

The case at hand therefore concerns an interesting scenario in which the Belgian court, belonging to a jurisdiction where only opt-in class action are allowed, is asked to recognise a U.S. opt-out class action settlement.READ MORE

1

The Netherlands to Introduce Possibility for Damages Claims Under Class Action System

DownloadPrint

As explained in my latest contribution in Business Law International (“Fortis’s Settlement: A comparative case-study of (securities) class action mechanisms in Europe and in the United States“), the Netherlands presently offer one of the most friendly regimes in Europe for collective actions. Unlike the U.S. class action system, however, the Netherlands does not offer the possibility to obtain monetary damages under the current class action rules.

Nevertheless, a new bill (the Bill) recently put before the Dutch legislature suggests that this significant limitation could be on the way out. I therefore wanted to take this opportunity to briefly introduce you to the future changes that might be brought to the class action regime in the Netherlands.READ MORE

0