Flux des sites DIP

Since Conflict of Laws became a subject section at the Society of Legal Scholars in 2017, it has been part of the Society’s annual conference. This year’s conference, which will be held in Preston, UK, from 3 September to 6 September (right before the Journal of Private International Law Conference in Munich), is no exception and the organiser’s of the Conflict of Laws section, Andrew Dickinson and Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, have kindly provided the following Call for Papers:

SLS Conflict of Laws Section: Call for Papers and Panels for 2019 SLS Annual Conference at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston

This is a call for papers and panels for the Conflict of Laws section of the 2019 SLS Annual Conference to be held at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston from Tuesday 3rd September – Friday 6th September.  This year’s theme is ‘Central Questions About Law’.

This marks the third year of the Conflict of Laws section, and we are hoping to build on the successful meetings in Dublin and London.

The Conflict of Laws section will meet in the first half of the conference on Tuesday 3rd and Wednesday 4th September.

We intend that the section will comprise four sessions of 90 minutes, with 3 or more papers being presented in each session, followed by discussion. At least three of the sessions will be organised by theme. We hope, if submissions allow, to be able to set aside one session for papers by early career researchers (within 5-years of PhD or equivalent).

We welcome proposals from scholars in the field for papers or panels on any issue relating to any topical aspect of the Conflict of Laws (private international law), including but not limited to those addressing this year’s conference theme.

If you are interested in delivering a paper, we ask you to submit a proposed title and abstract of around 300 words. If you wish to propose a panel, please submit an outline of the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate), together with their proposed titles and abstracts. We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.

Please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Monday 18th March 2019.  All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed using the following link – https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/1028/submission – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible are able to present, we discourage speakers from presenting more than one paper at the conference.  With this in mind, when you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts, you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.

The SLS offers a Best Paper Prize which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £250 monetary award and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, be published in Legal Studies.

To be eligible for the Best Paper Prize:

• speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS;
• papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word);
• papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11.59pm UK time on Monday 26th August; and
• papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication.

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Friday 14th June in order to secure their place within the programme, though please do let us know if this is likely to pose any problems for you.  Booking information will be circulated in due course.

We note also that prospective speakers do not need to be members of the SLS or already signed up as members of a section to propose or deliver a paper.

We look forward to seeing you, as a speaker or delegate, at the Conflict of Laws session in Lancashire.

With best wishes,

Professor Andrew Dickinson, St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford
Dr Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, University College Dublin (Conveners)

[2019] EWCA Civ 10 Kaefer Aislamientos v AMS Drilling et al is a good illustration of the difficulty of privity of contract (here: privity of choice of court), and the limits to the harmonisation of the rules on choice of court under Article 25 Brussels I Recast.

Herbert Smith Freehills have analysis of the wider issues of the case (over and above Article 25) here. The appeal considers among others the approach that courts should adopt when, as will usually be the case at the interim stage when a jurisdiction challenge is launched, the evidence before the Court is incomplete. Goldman Sachs v Novo Banco as well as Brownlie were referenced.

Appellant contends that the Court has jurisdiction to determine the claim against defendants AT1 and Ezion under Article 25 Brussels I Recast. It is said that the relevant contract contains an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and the relevant contract was concluded by AMS Mexico and/or AMS on behalf of AT1 and/or Ezion as undisclosed principals and, it follows, the contract, including its jurisdiction agreement, bound AT1 and Ezion.

At 81 Lord Green refers to the Privy Council in Bols [2006] UKPC 45 which itself had referred to Colzani and Coreck Maritime (staple precedent at the CJEU; students of conflict of laws: time to worry if you read this around exam time and haven’t a clue). In Bols Lord Rodgers leading, held that CJEU precedent imposed on the court the duty of examining “whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties” and this had to be “clearly and precisely demonstrated“. The purpose of the provisions was, it was said, to ensure that the “consensus” between the parties was “in fact” established.

Lord Green (this is not part of the decision in Bols) adds that the Court of Justice has however recognised that the manner of this proof is essentially an issue for the national laws of the Member States, subject to an overriding duty to ensure that those laws are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Regulation. He does not cite CJEU precedent in support – but he is right: Article 25 contains essential, yet precious little bite in determining just how to establish such consensus. Prima facie complete, it leaves a vault of issues to be determined, starting with the element of ‘proof’ of consensus.

Of interest is that before deciding the issue, Lord Green notes at 85 Abela v Baardani [2013] UKSC 44 (“Abela“) at paragraphs [44] and [53] per Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption, that to view permission to service out of jurisdiction as more often than not exorbitant, is unrealistic in the modern era: routinely where service out is authorised the defendant will have submitted contractually to the jurisdiction of the domestic courts (or there would be an argument to that effect) and in any event litigation between residents of different states is a normal incident of modern global business. As such the decision to permit service out is, today, more generally viewed as a pragmatic decision predicated upon the efficiency of the conduct of litigation.

It was eventually held that the evidence pointed against AT1 and Exion being undisclosed principals and that therefore the Court of Appeal was right in rejecting jurisdiction.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9, Heading 2.2.9.4.

Corruption continues to cast a shadow over investment law. When allegations of corruption arise in an investment dispute, the tribunal faces the difficult task of deciding whether (and how) to penalize the responsible party. It must assess the often-limited evidence and then craft an appropriate remedy. The legal and practical questions this raises remain highly contested. On Tuesday, February 19, 2019, the ILA American Branch Investment Law Committee and the Georgetown International Arbitration Society are hosting an evening conference to discuss these questions, bringing together academic and non-academic perspectives.

Panel 1: What is sufficient proof of corruption?
• Aloysius Llamzon, Senior Associate, King & Spalding
• Jason Yackee, Professor, University of Wisconsin
• Meriam Al-Rashid, Partner, Dentons

Panel 2: What is the right response when corruption is found?
• Lucinda Low, Partner, Steptoe
• Arif H. Ali, Partner, Dechert

Opening and closing:
• David L. Attanasio, Co-Chair, ILA American Branch Investment Law Committee; Associate, Dechert
• Malika Aggarwal, Georgetown International Arbitration Society

Location:
Dechert
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

When:
Tuesday, February 19, 2019, with registration from 4:45 pm and the program commencing at 5:00 pm.

Space is limited, so please RSVP as soon as possible here

The forthcoming volume of the Japanese Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 61, 2018) will feature the following articles and case notes relating to private international law:

Articles

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF CONSUMER COLLECTIVE REDRESS

Dai Yokomizo, Introductory Note (168)

Kazuhiko Yamamoto, Special Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property Damage Incurred by Consumers — About So-Called “Japanese Class Action” — (169)

Dai Yokomizo, Consumer Collective Redress and Japanese Conflict of Laws (190)

Stefaan Voet, Europe’s Collective Redress Conundrum (205)

Catherine Piché & Geneviève Saumier, Consumer Collective Redress in Canada (231)

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Masato Dogauchi, The Aftermath of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Accident: How Japanese Lawyers Have Been Playing Their Roles with Regard to the Nuclear Damage? (284)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN JAPAN (369ss)

Public International Law

Takamatsu High Court, Judgment, April 25, 2016

Hate Speech — The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — Relevance of the Convention in Interpreting Domestic Laws

Nagoya High Court, Judgment, September 7, 2016

Eligibility for Refugee Status — Burden and Degree of Proof — Situation in Nepal — Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees — Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status

Nagoya High Court, Judgment, November 30, 2016

Factors to be Taken into Consideration in Determination of Special Permission to Stay — Continuous De Facto Marriage and Family Life — Criminal Offence and Extenuating Circumstances

Naha District Court (Okinawa Branch), Judgment, February 9, 2017

State Immunity — Activities of Foreign Armed Forces Stationing in the Forum State with Its Consent — Tort Exception — Relationship Between the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Customary Rules on State Immunity

Private International Law

Supreme Court (3rd Petty Bench), Judgment, December 12, 2017

Challenge to Arbitral Award — Arbitrator Conflict of Interest — Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

Supreme Court (3rd Petty Bench), Judgment, 12 December 2017

Japanese Anti-Monopoly Act — Extraterritorial Application — Price-Fixing Cartel 

Supreme Court (1st Petty Bench), Decision, December 21, 2017

International Child Abduction — Modification of the Order to Return 

Tokyo High Court, Judgment, November 25, 2015

Enforcement of Judgment — Defamation — Reciprocity

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, January 17, 2017

International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts — Rescindment of Contracts by Fraud — Overriding Mandatory Provision

Tokyo High Court, Judgment, October 25, 2017

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Commercial Contracts — Public Policy — Civil Remedy— International Private Law — Limitation of Party Autonomy by Mandatory Rules — Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position — Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act — Article 709 of the Civil Code

More information on the Yearbook (former Annual) and the content of its past volumes is available at http://www.ilajapan.org/jyil/.

This post requires seriously engaged interest in EU waste law. Very few of you I am sure are familiar with my work  – in Dutch (with Tom de Gendt, and Kurt Deketelaere) on animal waste /animal by-products. Yet please all those of you who are not waste nerds, do not turn away yet: for animal wastes and animal by-products are a raw material for biogas installations. The regulatory issues at stake therefore are relevant to the renewable energy sector.

Saugmandsgaard ØE opined end January in C-634/16 ReFood – the English text was not available at the time of writing. A lorry with animal by-products collected in The Netherlands, was making its way to a German biogas installation (one of many many thousands such transports) when it was stopped, the driver being asked to produce the relevant waste export permit – which he did not possess.

Recital 11 of the waste shipments Regulation 1013/2006, introduces the issue at stake, which is avoiding regulatory duplication: ‘It is necessary to avoid duplication with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, which already contains provisions covering the overall consignment, channelling and movement (collection, transport, handling, processing, use, recovery or disposal, record keeping, accompanying documents and traceability) of animal by-products within, into and out of the Community.’ As a result, the Regulation exempts from its scope of application ‘shipments which are subject to the approval requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002’. Core of the regulatory conundrum is that Regulation 1774/2002 does not contain ‘approval requirements’ for the relevant category. (They are category 3 animal by-products, these are the least problematic animal wastes).

The AG suggests a broad reading of the exemption, and one which prevents overlap between the two regimes. Animal by-products fall under the exemption full stop: there are no two, three or more ways about it. (The AG argues along the lines of linguistic analysis, regulatory logic, and the preparatory works of all EU secondary law at issue).

Geert.

The Dutch Supreme Court late in January has confirmed the lower court’s decision (see my report here) in Yukos, not to recognise the Russian liquidation order of 1 August 2006 regarding OAO Yukos Oil Company. The decision to recognise or not evidently is based on residuary Dutch conflict of laws (the Insolvency Regulation is not engaged).

At 4.1.3 the Supreme Court emphasises that the principle of mutual trust does not apply, as it would do between EU jurisdictions. It then does not perform the entire ordre public exercise from scratch, rather assesses whether the lower court properly carried out said analysis (as befits its role as a Supreme Court). Which it finds, the Court of Appeals did. Its ordre public check did not in the abstract test Russian court proceedings, rather tested whether the precise conduct of all involved parties led to use of the judicial system in a way which compromises the core Dutch legal order (see for more detail on that, my earlier post).

Textbook ordre public.

Geert.

A new blog specializing on international economic law matters as they relate to Africa has recently been created. AfronomicsLaw will complement the growing and important voice of scholars interested in international economic law with a focus on Africa. It will also offer policy makers, practitioners and others interested in these issues a forum to insightfully engage and reflect on developments on international economic law more contemporaneously.

The Editors are James T. Gathii (Loyola Chicago University Law School), Olabisi D. Akinkugbe (Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University), and Nthope Mapefane (University of Pretoria) both copied on this email.

The blog hosts featured symposiums on topical themes and books. It will also highlight relevant news and forthcoming events. The Editors encourage submissions of an analytical and reflective nature. Individual and Symposium contributions should be sent to afronomicslaw@gmail.com
Ideally, submissions should not exceed 1000 words without prior arrangement with the blog editors. Footnotes can be used sparingly, but for readability hyperlinks will work better.

The most recent issue of the Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law; Vol. 117 [2018], No. 4) features the following contributions:

Basel – Ein gebrochenes Versprechen?

Zur Entwicklung der Bankenregulierung in der Europäischen Union und in den Vereinigten Staaten 

Ann-Kathrin Kaufhold*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 415-428

[Basel – a Promise Broken? – Regarding the Development of Banking Regulation in the European Union and the United States]

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was founded in order to harmonize prudential regulation of banks internationally. Today the Basel standards, in fact, strongly influence national banking regulation both in the European Union and in the United States. Yet, at the same time, European and US regulatory requirements for banks still differ substantially. Against this backdrop the article examines the success and failure of the Basel Committee and asks for the consequences of divergences in international banking regulation.

Entwicklung und Vielfalt von Bank- und Finanzsystemen 

Reinhard H. Schmidt* 

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 429-439

[Development and Diversity in Banking and the Financial Systems]

In its first part, the paper discusses the development of the banking systems and, more comprehensively, of the entire financial systems of Germany, Western Europe and other parts of the world under the aspect of diversity. In this discussion, the author distinguishes between, on the one hand, the diversity of the banking system of a given country or region and, on the other hand, that between countries or regions.

The overall finding is that banking and financial systems of different countries and regions differ more than it is generally expected. This raises the question addressed in the second part of the paper: Why do banking and financial systems differ so strongly or, in other words, why do we not observe a stronger convergence of these systems over time, and how can one assess the stunning degree of diversity of the banking and financial systems in different countries and regions? The author argues that from an economic policy perspective diversity of banking and financial systems not to be considered as a deficiency but rather a benefit.

National and International Banking Heterogeneity

Axel Kind*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 440-454

The costs of the Global Financial Crisis in terms of lost GDP growth have been higher in Europe than in the US. This is likely due to the outbreak of the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. To countervail its negative effects, the EU has made considerable efforts to initiate the European Banking Union with its ideal of a level playing field among credit institutions. In spite of these harmonization efforts, the level of heterogeneity of banks across member states in terms of their average performance, capital adequacy, and asset quality remains high. Banks in the Southern and Eastern European periphery are found to be less profitable and riskier than their counterparts in other regions of the EU. Given that such differences can be traced back, at least partially, to country-specific factors – economic, legal, and institutional conditions – applying the same prudential rules to all EU banks may fail to comply with the level-playing-field paradigm and actually distort the competition among European banks. The European banking sector is characterized by a rich variety of governance structures – most notably the coexistence of shareholder banks and stakeholder banks. This abundance of governance systems should be viewed as valuable diversity rather than a sign of old-fashioned and outdated banking structures. In particular, the outperformance of cooperative and savings banks in several European countries – most notably in Germany – should induce regulators to reconsider the primate of shareholder banks and motivate further discussions about optimal governance structures in modern banking.

Differentiation and Convergence of Supervision in the European
Banking Union

Günter Franke*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 455-477

Empirical evidence suggests that SME funding is more difficult in countries with weaker legal and economic conditions. In these countries, additional bank lending may generate higher social benefits. Operating under the same set of bank regulation, transitionally milder bank supervision in “weaker” countries might motivate banks to give more loans. This might reinforce economic growth, but also endanger financial stability. Depending on the objectives of regulation and supervision, transitional milder supervision might improve welfare. If such a policy is adopted, supervision should get stronger when legal and economic conditions improve. However, a deterioration in these conditions should not weaken supervision.

Die extraterritoriale Regulierung von international tätigen Banken 

Christoph Ohler*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 478-491

[The Exterritorial Regulation of Internationally Operative Banks]

The contribution discusses the legal limits under public international law for states and the European Union when they regulate internationally operating banks. The business activity of such banks brings them in contact with many national legal orders. Once jurisdiction applies, they must comply with the prudential requirements of those states. In addition, the USA and the EU, in particular, claim the extraterritorial application of their supervisory laws in certain cases. Public international law, as it stands, does not prohibit the multiple regulatory burdens for the banks resulting from internationally concurrent regulatory powers. Neither the standards adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision nor the rules of the WTO or the principles under international customary law restrict significantly the jurisdiction of the states and the EU.

Das Zusammenspiel von Regulierung und Profitabilität im Bankensektor 

Johannes-Jörg Riegler*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 492-504

[The Interaction of Regulation and Profitability in the Banking Sector] 

The Association of German Public Banks (Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands, VÖB) has quantified the relationship between regulation and profitability for Germany’s top 17 banks since 2014. A sample bank which was formed as an aggregate of the institutions for the analysis shows the lack of profitability and the limits for the potential of accumulating and distributing profits, while the delta between profitability and capital costs complicates the access to the capital market. The finalisation of the Basel III reform package in December 2017 will impose additional regulatory requirements on banks.

The author warns of a loss of importance of the German and European banking industry in the face of international competition and pleads for a combination of necessary regulation and appropriate revenue opportunities for banks.

Konflikte bei der Durchsetzung des europäischen Kapitalmarktrechts – Koordinierungsbedarf zwischen Aufsichts- und Zivilrecht 

Dörte Poelzig*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 505-525

[Conflicts in the Enforcement of European Capital Market Law – The Need for Coordination between Regulatory and Civil Law]

Recent European capital market law reforms have introduced a multitude of enforcement instruments, by both supervisory and civil law, all of which aim to enforce the law in accordance with the “effet utile”, i.e. in an effective, dissuasive and proportionate way. Frequently, supervisory and civil enforcement are treated as issues detached from one another. However, this separate treatment leads to tensions that are detrimental to the effective enforcement of capital markets law. The following article examines the underlying conflicts and their solutions, illustrated by three examples: the access to supervisory information by private individuals, the different interpretation of capital markets law by supervisory agencies and civil law courts, and the risk of multiple sanctions for the same cause of action.

Die Herausforderung regulatorischer Vielfalt 

Joachim Hoeck und Hans Christian Röhl* 

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 526-541

[The Challenges of Regulatory Diversity]

Regulatory variety results in a variety of different legal regimes and implementation practices. Whether being subjected to this regimes or applying it, one will have to develop strategies to cope with the resulting challenges. The papers tries to explore different legal instruments (standardization, recovery and resolution, subsidiarization and market access) and to show how instead of efforts to a harmonization a more and more divergent legal setting takes places and stresses the resulting problems.

Regulatorische Vielfalt aus der Perspektive einer Bank 

Mathias Otto*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 542-556

[Regulatory Diversity from a Banking Perspective]

The globalization of the financial industry as well as tightened regulation of the sector significantly increased the potential for cross-border regulatory conflicts. International bodies like the Basel Committee try to address such conflicts by improving cooperation between national authorities and in the meantime have evolved into global standard setters. This leads to unification of regulatory rules which, however, encounter different economic and social environments in the various countries. Moreover, national authorities applying these rules are accountable to their respective national governments and parliaments. As a result, practice will have to continue to deal with regulatory conflicts that are not resolvable as a matter of principle and therefore search for a practicable solution for the individual case at hand.

Komplexe Compliance bei Banken

Interne Organisation und Konzerngestaltung bei Geschäften im In- und Ausland 

Rüdiger Wilhelmi*

ZVglRWiss 117 (2018) 557-571

[Complex Compliance in Banks – Internal Organisation and Corporation Organisation in Business Domestic and Abroad]

This contribution discusses which laws the compliance related to business domestically and abroad has to observe and whether it is possible to allocate and isolate compliance duties and risk connected with this business by internal organisation or the design of groups of companies. It concludes that with regard to banking compliance the separation principle in the law of groups of companies does not apply and it is only possible to allocate compliance duties but not to isolate compliance risk by the design of groups of companies.

* Prof. Dr. Ann-Katrin Kaufhold ist Inhaberin des Lehrstuhls für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. – Für wertvolle Unterstützung bei der Recherche danke ich herzlich meiner Mitarbeiterin Frau Dr. Ann-Katrin Wolff.

* Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reinhard H. Schmidt ist Professor em. für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Internationales Bank- und Finanzwesen an der Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, und Seinorprofessor für International Banking im House of Finance der Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.

* Prof. Dr. Axel Kind, Chair of Corporate Finance, University of Konstanz.

* Prof. em. Dr. Dr. h.c. Günter Franke, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universität Konstanz. – I am very indebted to Jan Pieter Krahnen for intensive and controversial discussions. Moreover, I am grateful for helpful comments of the participants of the workshop in Konstanz on April 21/22, 2018, in particular to Roland Broemel, Hans-Helmut Kotz and Bernd Rudolph.

* Prof. Dr. Christoph Ohler, LL.M. ist Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Öffentliches Recht, Europarecht, Völkerrecht und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.

* Dr. Johannes-Jörg Riegler, Vorstandsvorsitzender der BayernLB und Präsident des Bundesverbandes Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands, VÖB.

* Prof. Dr. Dörte Poelzig, M.jur. (Oxon), ist Inhaberin des Lehrstuhls für Bürgerliches Recht, Deutsches und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht an der Juristenfakultät der Universität Leipzig. – Sie dankt Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Röhl für wertvolle Anregungen.

* Dr. Joachim Hoeck, Zürich ist Rechtsanwalt bei der Schweizer Großbank. Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Röhl ist Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht, Europarecht und Rechtsvergleichung an der Universität Konstanz. – Der Beitrag gibt die persönlichen Auffassungen beider Autoren wieder.

* Dr. iur. Mathias Otto ist Rechtsanwalt und General Counsel of Infrastructure and Regulatory Advice einer internationalen Großbank. – Der Beitrag gibt die persönliche Auffassung des Autors wieder.

* Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Wilhelmi ist Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Bürgerliches Recht, Handels-, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht sowie Rechtsvergleichung an der Universität Konstanz. Der Beitrag beruht auf einem Vortrag auf der interdisziplinären Tagung „Die Dynamik der Vielfalt im Finanzmarkt als Herausforderung für Recht und Ökonomik: Fragmentierung und Territorialisierung“ am 20./21.04.2018 in Konstanz.

(This announcement is provided by Dr. Jeanne Huang, who is now working in Sydney Law School)

International Civil and Commercial Dispute Resolution in Asia Pacific China and Australia Private International Law Forum
17th & 18th July 2019, Shanghai, China
CALL FOR PAPERS PROPOSAL
Submission Deadline: 15th April 2019
Send to: ecpfl_ecupl@163.com

With the increase of economic exchanges between countries in Asia Pacific, judges, arbitrators, and practitioners are more frequently called upon to address complex jurisdiction, choice of law, and enforcement issues. The robust development of private international law globally also requires us to explore new challenges and opportunities.

We invite scholars, at any stage of their career, working on private international law to submit expressions of interest to present at the conference, which will be held at the Changning campus (in the city center), East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai China on 17th-18th July 2019. The conference is designed to allow researchers to deliver work-in-progress papers to their peers. Conference languages are both English and Chinese. Simultaneous translation will be provided.
We are keen to receive proposals that focus on private-international-law issues, such as:
• Hague Judgments Project;
• Judicial assistance, especially between China and Australia;
• Jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgment recognition and enforcement;
• Cross-border dispute resolution in commercial and family law cases;
• Arbitration; and
• All other private-international-law issues related to our mandate.
We welcome proposals on private-international-law issues which are not specifically for China and Australia but have global importance.

SUBMISSION:
For paper proposals, please submit a title and max 200 word abstract, along with a one-para CV. For panel proposals, please submit a title and max 800 word abstract, along with a one-page CV covering 3-4 panel members.
Proposal Due: 15 April 2019. Announcement of successful submission: 15 May 2019.
Speakers are expected to cover their own transportation and accommodation. Catering will be provided during the conference.

ATTENDANCE:
We invite all interested in attending to do so at no registration fee. Please contact us at ecpfl_ecupl@163.com to reserve your seat. If you could also please pass on the invitation to both your graduate students and your colleagues, it would be greatly appreciated.

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANIZERS:
Founded on the site of the former St. John’s University in 1952, the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL, formerly known as the East China Institute of Politics and Law) is among the first higher educational institutions established by the People’s Republic of China specializing in legal and political science education. Throughout the years, ECUPL has established the largest private international law research team in Shanghai, Supreme People’s Court International Judicial Assistance Research Centre, Centre for Proving Foreign Law, etc.
Established in 1855 and ranked 14th in the world by the QS World University Ranking in 2018, the University of Sydney Law School is home to exceptional legal educators, world-renowned researchers and esteemed professional practitioners. Private International Law is a compulsory course for every student at the Sydney Law School. The Centre for Asian and Pacific Law is located within Sydney Law School and its members have legal expertise in a wide variety of Asian jurisdictions, including China.
China Society of Private International Law (CSPIL) is a non-governmental organization to promote the development of private international law in China. Its members include academics, judges, practitioners and other legal professionals.
We look forward to welcoming you in Shanghai!

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

M. Wendland: Procedural challenges within the system of international jurisdiction according to the new European regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships: Well-known and innovative instruments from the experimental laboratory of the European Commission

As from 29th January 2019 two new EU regulations will apply establishing a comprehensive legal framework which regulates jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (2016/1103) and of the property consequences of registered partnerships (2016/1104). The two regulations will close one of the last remaining gaps within the system of International Private and Procedural Law in family matters. Its regulative approach is as new as innovative even though not entirely unproblematic. This paper examines selected problems of both regulations from the perspective of International Procedural Law and presents possible solutions.

R. Magnus: The implied choice of law in international succession and family law

Recent EU Regulations have led to major changes in international succession and family law. This article compares the conflict of laws rules of the different Regulations dealing with the possibility to choose the applicable law implicitly. The main focus lies on a question not yet much discussed, namely whether or not the validity of the implied choice depends on the validity of the legal act from which it is inferred (e.g. will, agreement as to the succession, marriage contract, prenuptial agreement). As conclusion it is proposed that careful distinctions should be made taking into account the different reasons that might hinder the validity of a legal act (in particular the distinction between invalidity because of a lack of the required form and invalidity due to a conflict with public policy) and specific particularities of family and succession law.

F.Eichel: The jurisdictional concept of ‘the place of the event giving rise to the damage’ and international trade mark infringements spread through digital media

Both the German Federal Court (BGH, 19.11.2017 – I ZR 164/16) and the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH, 20.12.2016 – 4 Ob 45/16w) have applied to Article 125(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001 (EU trade mark regulation) the general case law on the determination of “the place of the event giving rise to the damage” in terms of Art. 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation. If that was correct, Art. 125(5) would, to a large extent, lose its effectiveness. Contrary to the position of the OGH and the BGH, the ECJ rulings “Hejduk” and “Wintersteiger” on Art. 7(2) Brussels Regulation are not applicable to Art. 125(5), and neither is the ECJ ruling “Nintendo ./. BigBen” which has no jurisdictional dimension. Instead, Art. 125(5) Regulation No 2017/1001 (as well as Art. 82(5) Regulation No 6/2002) must be interpreted independently and should be aligned with Article 2:202 of the “CLIP Principles”. This latter model rule places jurisdiction for infringement claims upon the courts of a state when an alleged infringer who has not acted in this state has directed his or her activities to the forum.

P. Schlosser: International Jurisdiction in case of Transborder Transportation in Execution of a Single Order

The direct claim of the injured party, or its insurer, may be introduced alternatively in the court or the place of dispatch or in the court of the place of destination.

K. Thorn/C. Lasthaus: Legal Succession concerning Immovable Property under the European Commission’s Succession Regulation

The European Commission’s succession regulation 650/2012 aims to harmonise the application of succession law among EU member states. However, its material scope, in particular the ambit of the exemptions under Art. 1 para. 2, has remained contentious. In recent decisions, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) leaned towards a narrow interpretation of the exemptions provided by Art. 1 para. 2 lit. k and l thereby extending the Regulation’s scope. The ECJ held that under Art. 1 para. 2 lit. k and l, 31 a legacy “by vindication”, which directly grants a proprietary interest in the bequeathed, in this case immovable, property to the legatee, should be given effect even in member states where proprietary interests cannot be directly transferred by legacy. The OGH discussed the scope of Art. 1 para. 2 lit. l concerning the constitutive effect of a recording in the public register provided by the law of the Member State in which the register is kept. In this legal review, the authors argue that while the courts’ intention to strengthen the Regulation’s objective is to be supported, their reasoning should have been more precise.

A. Golab: Cross-border implications of fictitious service and unreasoned judgements in the EU

In the present case the Federal Court of Justice addressed the issue of acceptability of effects produced by a Polish court’s recourse to fictitious service of documents from the perspective of German procedural public policy. The aim of the annotation is to assess whether the application of Article 1135 (5) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure met the criteria of public policy exception and how the conclusion of this analysis might apply to other similar instances where fictitious service is at play with regard to recognition or enforcement of judgements in the Brussels regime. In addition, the annotation will also address the issue of an unreasoned Polish judgment, which was also expounded on by the Federal Court of Justice.

A.-S. Tietz: The notarisation of articles of association incorporating a German Limited Liability Company (GmbH) by a Swiss notary based in the Canton of Berne

The Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Kammergericht) held that a German Limited Liability Company (GmbH) had been properly incorporated, even though its articles of association had been notarised by a Swiss notary in the Cantone of Berne in Switzerland. It reversed the decision of the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Charlottenburg which had refused to enter the company into the Commercial Register as it had deemed the content of the foreign deed invalid. The Higher Regional Court held that the foreign notarisation had substituted a notarisation carried out by a German notary, as the notarial deed had been read aloud to the participants in the presence of the notary, and subsequently approved and signed personally by the participants. It therefore ordered the District Court to enter the company into the German Commercial Register. Although this was the first time that a German Higher Regional Court had been confronted with this question, the decision has revived the debate on the “recognition” of legal relationships evidenced by foreign deeds under German corporate law. The article contributes to the discussion by addressing the legal questions resulting from the decision, which concern the applicable law to the formal requirements as well as the “substitution” of a notarisation by a German notary by a Bernese notary within the meaning of Sec. 2 German Limited Liability Companies Act.

S.L. Gössl: Regulatory Gaps and Analogies in Conflict of Laws – Example: Embryo Parenthood

The German Supreme Court (BGH) had to decide which law to apply to the (assumed) parenthood on embryos in California. The court developed a conflict of laws rule not reflecting the German substantive law regarding this issue. The article analyses and criticizes the decision. It focuses on the question how, from a methodological point of view, private international law deals with regulatory gaps, and how to close them by analogy. Eventually, the article proposes an alternative characterization of the issue and, consequently, an alternative conflict of laws rule. It furthermore shows that the most important gap lies in the (deficient) substantive law where regulation is needed urgently.

Twice last week did the Lugano Convention’s protected categories title feature at the Court of Justice. On Tuesday, Szpunar AG opined in C-694/17 Pillar Securitisation v Hildur Arnadottir (consumer protection), and on Thursday Saugmansgaard ØE opined in C-603/17 Bosworth (Arcadia Petroleum) (employment contracts).

The issues that are being interpreted are materially very similar as in Brussels I Recast hence both evidently have an impact on the Brussels I Recast Regulation, too.

At stake in Pillar Securitisation (no English version of the Opinion at the time of writing) is the meaning of ‘outside his trade or profession’ in the consumer title. Advocate General Szpunar takes the case as a trigger to fine-tune the exact relationship between private international law such as was the case, he suggests, in Kainz and also in Vapenik.

I wrote in my review of Vapenik at the time: ‘I disagree though with the Court’s reference to substantive European consumer law, in particular the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Not because it is particularly harmful in the case at issue. Rather because I do not think conflict of laws should be too polluted with substantive law considerations. (See also my approval of Kainz).’

Ms Arnadottir’s case relates to the Kaupting reorganisation. Her personal loan exceeded one million € and therefore is not covered by Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers (maximum threshold there is 75K). Does that exclude her contract being covered by Lugano’s consumer Title?

The Directive’s core notion is ‘transaction’, as opposed to Lugano’s ‘contract’ (at 30 ff). And the Advocate-General of course has no option but to note the support given by the Court to consistent interpretation, in Vapenik. Yet at 42 ff he suggests a narrow reading of Vapenik, for a variety of reasons, including

• the presence, here, of Lugano States (not just EU Member States);
• the need for consistent interpretation between Lugano and Brussels (which does not support giving too much weight to EU secondary law outside the private international law sphere);
• and, most importantly, Kainz: a judgment, unlike Vapenik, which directly concerns Brussels I (and therefore also the link with Lugano). One of the implications which as I noted a the time I like a lot, is precisely  its respect for the design and purpose of private international law rules as opposed to other rules of secondary law; and within PIL, the distinction between jurisdiction and applicable law.

At 52 ff Advocate General Szpunar rejects further arguments invoked by parties to suggest the consumer title of the jurisdictional rules should be aligned with secondary EU consumer law. His line of reasoning is solid, however: autonomous interpretation of EU private international law prevents automatic alignment between consumer law and PIL.

Should the CJEU follow its first Advocate General, which along Kainz I suggest it should, no doubt distinguishing will be suggested given the presence of Lugano parties in Pillar Securitisation – yet the emphasis on autonomous interpretation suggest a wider calling.

C‑603/17 Bosworth v Arcadia then was sent up to Luxembourg by the UK’s Supreme Court [UKSC 2016/0181, upon appeal from [2016] EWCA Civ 818] concerning the employment Title of Lugano 2007 (which only the other week featured at the High Court in Cunico v Daskalakis). As helpfully summarised by Philip Croall, Samantha Trevan and Abigail Lovell: do the English courts have jurisdiction over claims for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt brought against former employees of certain of the claimant companies now domiciled in Switzerland.

Gross J at the Court of Appeal had applied Holterman and Brogsitter, particularly in fact the Opinion of Jääskinen AG in Brogsitter – albeit with caution, for the AG’s Opinion was not adopted ‘wholesale’ by the CJEU (at 58, Court of Appeal). The mere fact that there is a contract of employment between parties is not sufficient to justify the application of the employment section of (here) the Lugano Convention. Gross J at 67: “do the conspiracy claims relate to the Appellants’ individual contracts of employment? Is there a material nexus between the conduct complained of and those contracts? Can the legal basis of these claims reasonably be regarded as a breach of those contracts so that it is indispensable to consider them in order to resolve the matter in dispute?” – answer: whilst not every conspiracy would fall outside the relevant section, and those articles could not be circumvented simply by pleading a claim in conspiracy, in the circumstances of this case, however precisely the test was formulated, the answer was clearly “no”: key to the alleged fraud lay not in the appellants’ contracts of employment, but in their de facto roles as CEO and CFO of the Arcadia Group.

In the main proceedings, the referring court must therefore determine whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to rule on those claims or whether it is the courts of Switzerland, as courts of the domicile of the former directors implicated, that must hear all or part of the claims.

The facts behind the case are particularly complex, as are the various wrongdoings which the directors are accused of and there is little merit in my rehashing the extensive summary by the AG (the SC’s hearings leading to the referral lasted over a day and a half).

Saugmansgaard ØE essentially confirms Gross J’s analysis. Company directors who carry out their duties in full autonomy are not bound to the company for which they perform those duties by an ‘individual contract of employment’ within the meaning of the employment section – there is no subordination (at 46). Note that like Szpunar SG, Saugmansgaard ØE too emphasises autonomous interpretation and no automatic colouring of one field of EU law by another: ‘the interpretation which the Court of Justice gives to a concept in one field of EU law cannot automatically be applied in a different field’ (at 49).

In the alternative, he opines that a claim made between parties to such a ‘contract’ and legally based in tort does fall within the scope of that section where the dispute arose in connection with the employment relationship and, secondly, that an ‘employer’ within the meaning of the provisions of that section is not necessarily solely the person with whom the employee formally concluded a contract of employment [at 109: what the AG has in mind are group relations, where ‘an organic and economic link’ between two companies exists, one of whom sues even if the contract of employment is not directly with that company].

It is in this, subsidiary section, at 66 ff, that the AG revisits for the sake of completeness, the difference between ‘contract; and ‘tort’ in EU pil in a section which among others will delight (and occupy) one of my PhD students, Michiel Poesen, who is writing his PhD on same. Michiel is chewing on the Opinion as we speak and no doubt will soon have relevant analysis of his own.

At 82 ff the AG points to the difficulties of the Brogsitter and other lines of cases: ‘the case-law of the Court is ambiguous, to say the least, in so far as concerns the way in which Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano II Convention are to be applied in cases where there are concurrent liabilities. It would be useful for the Court to clarify its position in this regard.’ At 83: it is preferable to adopt the logic resulting from [Kalfelis] and to classify a claim as ‘contractual’ or ‘tortious’ with regard to the substantive legal basis relied on by the applicant. At the very least, the Court should hold onto a strict reading of the judgment in Brogsitter’: at 79: the Court meant to classify as ‘contractual’ claims of liability in tort the merits of which depend on the content of the contractual duties binding the parties to the dispute.’, even if (at 84) this authorises a degree of forum shopping, enabling the applicant to choose jurisdiction, with an eye to the appropriate rules: for forum shopping particularly for special jurisdictional rules, is not at all absent from either Regulation or Convention.

There is of course an applicable law dimension to the dispute. The relationships between companies and their directors are governed not by employment law, but by company law (at 52). For an EU judge, the Rome I and Rome II Regulations kicks in. Rome I contains, in Article 8, provisions relating to ‘individual employment contracts’, however it also provides, in Article 1(2)(f), that ‘questions governed by the law of companies’ concerning, inter alia, the ‘internal organisation’ of companies are excluded from its scope (at 55). Rome II likewise has a company law exemption. That puts into perspective the need (or not; readers know that I am weary of this) to apply Rome I and Brussels /Lugano consistently.

One had better sit down for a while when reviewing these Opinions.

Geert.

Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9.

The American Society of Comparative Law (ASCL) has just issued a call for proposals for (1) concurrent panels and (2) a works in progress conference to be held in association with the ASCL 2019 Annual Meeting, which will be held at the University of Missouri School of Law between Thursday, October 17, and Saturday, October 19, 2019.  The event is open to ASCL and non-ASCL members.

The theme of the Annual Meeting is “Comparative Law and International Dispute Resolution Processes” and will feature presentations on how comparative law affects various types of cross-border conflict, including litigation, arbitration and mediation.  Concurrent panels and works in progress papers need not fall within this general theme, although of course they may.  Multilingual panel proposals will be considered as part of ASCL’s mission to foster plurilingualism.

Information on the event, including the call for panel proposals and works in progress submissions, is available at

http://law.missouri.edu/faculty/symposia/comparative-law-international-dispute-resolution-processes/  Proposals will be accepted until May 20, 2019.

Thank you Hélène Péroz for flagging 17-19.935 X v AS Monaco at the French Supreme Court, held December 2018. Claimant is a former physiotherapist employed by AS Monaco. His contract included choice of court ex-EU (not further specified in the judgment but one assumes, Monaco. Monaco is one of those micro-States with a complex arrangement with the EU).

The Supreme court first of all addresses the application of France’s jurisdictional rule R. 1412-1 of the Code du Travail. It assigns territorial jurisdiction in principle to the employment courts of the area where the employee habitually carries out the employment, with fall-back options which are similar to yet not quite the same as the provisions of Brussels I Recast:

Art. R. 1412- 1 L’employeur et le salarié portent les différends et litiges devant le conseil de prud’hommes territorialement compétent. Ce conseil est :

1 Soit celui dans le ressort duquel est situé l’établissement où est accompli le travail ;

2 Soit, lorsque le travail est accompli à domicile ou en dehors de toute entreprise ou établissement, celui dans le ressort duquel est situé le domicile du salarié.

Le salarié peut également saisir les conseils de prud’hommes du lieu où l’engagement a été contracté ou celui du lieu où l’employeur est établi. — [ Anc. art. R. 517- 1, al. 1er à 3.]

These provisions cast a slightly wider jurisdictional net than Brussels I Recast. That gap was even wider before Brussels I Recast had extended its jurisdictional reach to parties (the employer, or the business in the case of the consumer title) domiciled ex-EU. It is particularly its existence pre Brussels I Recast for which the provision is ranked among France’s exorbitant jurisdictional rules.

Now, coming to the case at issue. The Supreme Court first of all addresses the nature of the provision as lois de police and severely curtails same in the event of choice of court ex-EU: ‘ce n’est que si le contrat est exécuté dans un établissement situé en France ou en dehors de tout établissement que les dispositions d’ordre public de l’article R. 1412-1 font échec à l’application d’une telle clause.’ Only if the contract is performed in an establishment of the employer in France, or entirely outside such establishment (from the employee’s home or ‘on the road’) does Article R.1412-1 trump choice of court ex-EU. The lower court’s judgment had failed to assess these circumstances and therefore infringes the Article.

One suspects the Court felt it necessary to dot the i’s and cross the t’s on this issue for the natural order of analysis would of course have been to look at Brussels I Recast first: which the Court does after its analysis of the French law, thereby forgiving the lower court its incorrect application of French law. Reportedly the application of Brussels I to the issue is not something the Court has properly done in the past.

Article 21 Brussels I Recast requires assessment of the place of habitual carrying out of the work. Claimant worked mostly from the club’s training ground, which is in Turbie, France, and accompanied the club at fixtures. These however by reason of the football calendar clearly took place in Monaco only one out of two games (see the Count of Luxembourg for similar identification of the relevant criteria). Core of the employment therefore is France, notably in the Nice judicial area and therefore the lower court was right to uphold its jurisdiction.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.3.

The proceedings of the 29th edition of the Journée de droit international privé, the conference devoted to private international law topics organised yearly at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, have just been published under the title US Litigation Today: Still a Threat For European Businesses or Just a Paper Tiger?.

The volume, edited by Andrea Bonomi and Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer, discusses the current realities of US litigation for foreign companies. It features contributions by Samuel P. Baumgartner, Andrea Bonomi, Thirza Döbeli, William S. Dodge, Susan Emmenegger, Christoph A. Kern, Matthias Lehmann, Eva Lein, Linda J. Silberman, Symeon C. Symeonides, Karen Topaz Druckman, and Thomas Werlen.

For more information, including the table of contents, see here.

The Classical Liberal Institute and Willamette University College of Law invite you to a a symposium on “The Extraterritorial State.” The symposium will be held this Friday and Saturday, January 25th and 26th, in the Hearings Room of the Oregon Civic Justice Center. The symposium is free and open to faculty, students, and the public. The proceedings of the symposium will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Willamette Law Review. Please feel free to attend the entire event, or whichever panels are of most interest. Please find the complete list of presentation topics and schedule below.

Friday, January 25th

Hearings Room, Oregon Civic Justice Center (790 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301)

9:30 – 10:00am: Registration (Continental breakfast available)

10:00 – 10:15am: Opening Remarks

10:15 – 11:45am: Session 1

Presentation 1: Bill Dodge, “Reasonableness in the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law”

Presentation 2: Frank Gevurtz, “Extraterritoriality and the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law: Opportunities Lost”

11:45 – 12:00pm: Break

12:00 – 1:30: Session 2

Presentation 3: Maggie Gardner, “Minding the Empagran Gap”

Presentation 4: John Coyle, “Party Autonomy and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality”

1:30 – 2:15pm: Lunch in the Oregon Civic Justice Center

2:15 – 3:45pm: Session 3

Presentation 5: Andra Burke Robertson, “Conspiracy, and Accomplice Liability under the FCPA”

Presentation 6: Yanbai Andrea Wang, “Exporting American Discovery”

3:45 – 4:00pm: Break

4:00 – 4:45pm: Session 4

Presentation 7: Richard Epstein, “Citizenship, Alienage and Territoriality”

Saturday, January 26th

Hearings Room, Oregon Civic Justice Center (790 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301)

9:30 – 10:00am: Registration (Continental breakfast available)

10:00 – 11:30am: Session 5

Presentation 8: Kevin Benish, “Whose Law Governs Your Data?: Worldwide Injunctions, Extraterritorial Effects, And The Struggle To Regulate The Internet”

Presentation 9: Symeon Symeonides, “Injuries to Rights or Personality Through the Use of the Internet: Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, and Recognition of Foreign Judgments”

11:30 – 11:45am: Break

11:45 – 1:15pm: Session 6

Presentation 10: Jim Nafziger, “Extraterritorial Enforcement of Judgments: Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Foreign Sovereign Immunity, and the Protection of Cultural Property”

Presentation 11: Aaron Simowitz, “Defining Daimler‘s Domain: Consent, Jurisdiction, and Regulation of Terrorism”

1:15 – 2:00pm: Lunch in the Oregon Civic Justice Center

End of conference.

Thank you Dechert for flagging Case No. 16-00636 Cuzco v Tera (Chapter 11), in which Faris J with great clarity wades in on a motion to dismiss US Chapter 11 jurisdiction in favour of exclusive jurisdiction for the Seoul courts with respect to a Korean company shareholder derivative action.

The case is relevant to insolvency practitioners. More generally however it highlights the need for a court to keep a level heading when wading through to and fro litigation in various States.

A bit of factual detail is required to appreciate the ruling.

Cuzco USA filed a chapter 11 in Hawaii with its sole asset real property in Hawaii. Tera Resources Co., Ltd. (“Tera”), one of Cuzco Korea’s shareholders asserted that the Debtor and its insiders conspired to deprive Cuzco Korea of the value of the real property. Tera commenced an action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, piercing the corporate veil, unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

The defendants moved to dismiss, in favour of the Korean courts – and failed, both on arguments of forum non conveniens and on arguments of there being exclusive jurisdiction for the courts at Seoul. Defendant Mr Lee is purportedly the manager of Cuzco USA and the representative director of Cuzco Korea. Defendant Ms Yang is  shareholder and creditor of Cuzco Korea and an ally of Mr. Lee.

Cuzco USA had proposed, and the court confirmed, a Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. Briefly summarized, the Third Amended Plan provided that Cuzco USA would transfer the Keeaumoku (Hawaii) Property to Newco, a Hawaii limited liability company of which Mr. Lee is the sole member, that Newco would attempt to raise enough money through a refinancing to repay all of Cuzco USA’s creditors in full, and that if the refinancing did not occur by a date certain, Newco would sell the Keeaumoku Property at auction and distribute the proceeds to Cuzco USA’s creditors.

Tera and others filed motions for reconsideration of the order confirming the Third Amended Plan. Tera is a shareholder of Cuzco Korea. It also holds a judgment, entered by a Korean court, against Ms. Yang, and orders from a Korean court that, according to Tera, resulted in the seizure of Ms. Yang’s interests in and claims against Cuzco Korea.

Cuzco USA then moved to modify the Third Amended Plan and replaced it with a Fourth Amended Plan. Briefly summarized, this Plan eliminates the transfer of the Keeaumoku Property to Newco; instead, Cuzco USA will retain the property and either refinance it or sell it at auction. Tera and others vigorously objected to plan confirmation on multiple grounds. The court confirmed the Fourth Amended Plan.

Tera argued (among other things) that the Third Amended Plan was the product of a fraudulent scheme by Mr. Lee, Ms. Yang, and others to divert the equity in Cuzco USA from Cuzco Korea to themselves and to render Tera’s interests in Cuzco Korea worthless.

That Korean law covers governs the right to bring derivative claims on behalf of a Korean corporation is not under dispute between the parties. (It is therefore considered part of the rules on internal organisation which are subject to lex societatis). However Faris J dismissed defendants’ suggestion that the US court should also respect Korea’s jurisdictional rules that such suits be brought in Seoul only.

At B, p.10: US statutes confer subject matter jurisdiction on US courts. Statutes of another nation, such as the South Korean statute on which the moving defendants rely, cannot change the subject matter jurisdiction of a United States bankruptcy court under a United States statute.

Forum non conveniens was dismissed for there is a strong policy that favors centralization of claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy court that outweighs any other interest (at C, p.12). One would have to have strong arguments to push that aside and clearly these were not present here.

Geert.

Thank you Paul Davies for signalling the recent French decree on end of waste – EoW criteria. Such national initiatives are seen by some as being a sign of the failure of relevant provisions of EU Waste law (which suggest the EU should be developing such criteria). An alternative reading may suggest that national initiatives may be better places to read the technical and environmental and pubic health safety requirements at the local level, potentially preparing the way for EU criteria. Relevant procedures under EU law arguably are not the most efficient for the initial development of this type of detailed instrument, as the example of plastics and REACH also shows.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2015, OUP, 1.166 ff and 1.189 ff.

In March 2017, France’s ANSES, the relevant food, environment, and occupational health and safety agency, approved Monsanto’s Roundup Pro 360. That authorisation has now been annulled by the Courts at Lyon – around the same time the story broke of extensive unquestioned copy /pasting by regulators of industry dossiers.

At the beginning of its reasoning the court cites France’s environment charter, to which its Constitution refers. The Charter guarantees everyone in its first Article the right to live in a balanced environment and one with respect for human health. Article 5 entails the precautionary principle, with reference (of course) to scientific assessment and proportionality.

Yet this intro is made for dramatic effect only. The judgment is in fact nothing but a straightforward application of risk assessment requirements on the basis of prevention, not precaution, and a simple observation of infringement of EU law.

At 3 (p.7) the court points out the consequences of the relevant EU authorisation regime. Active ingredients such as glyphosate are authorised (or not; and potentially with conditions) by the EU. Applications in wich these substances are used, by the Member States.

France’s Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer (CIRC) had classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic’. Its report on same is referred to by the court as a ‘handbook’, based on peer reviewed studies, the data of which are objectively verifiable as well as replicable. In the other corner, one study referred to by Monsanto (at 7). Relevant EFSA studies only look at the active ingredient and it is these studies upon which ANSES’ decision was based. These studies do not assess the active ingredients’ actual use in preparations such as Roundup Pro 360 which is 41.5% glyphosate. Consequently ANSES quite straightforwardly violates Regulation 1107/2009, particularly its Article 36(6), which prescribes that interaction between the active substance, safeners, synergists and co-formulants shall be taken into account in the evaluation of plant protection products.

The judgment is convincing and straightforward. The road to it was all but easy.

Geert.

EU environmental law (with Leonie Reins), Edward Elgar, soft cover edition 2018, p.28 ff.

Professor Ronald Brand has published the second edition of his book, International Business Transactions Fundamentals, with Kluwer Law International. It is designed primarily for use in a course on International Business Transactions, but is suitable as a desk reference on important basic issues raised on cross-border contractual relationships. Unlike some International Business Transactions casebooks which focus on WTO-related aspects of international trade regulation, this book draws extensively on private international law and the ways in which it can be used to structure cross-border commercial transactions. Coverage includes basic commercial law issues including price-delivery terms and letter of credit financing, dispute resolution issues and how to avoid them by proper planning at the transaction stage, the legal framework for import and export regulations planning, contracting with foreign sovereigns, compliance with anti-corruption legislation, legal relationships created by foreign investment, antitrust regulation and compliance, and a chapter on professional responsibility and the unique legal representation issues raised in cross-border transactions.

The second edition incorporates nearly four decades of work by the author to present the fundamentals of the law of international business transactions organized in a manner designed to help the reader identify risks inherent in cross-border transactions; eliminate risks where possible; reduce risks that cannot be eliminated, and reallocate risks through the use of contractual relationships. It provides an organized progression of materials from the simple export-import transaction to complex international investments, all designed to help the reader understand how to avoid risk in transnational transactions through the use of the legal framework available for providing institutional protection; the purchased protection available for transnational transactions; and the ways in which negotiated protection may be provided to build on institutional and purchased protections

Professors interested in considering the book for adoption in a course may contact Laurien Roos at Laurien.Roos@wolterskluwer.com.

In [2019] EWHC 57 (Comm) Cunico v Daskalakis Baker J applies the employment and choice of court titles of the Lugano Convention 2007. Mr Daskalakis and the second defendant, Mr Mundhra, worked for the Cunico group. The group operated in base metals industries and markets. Defendants’ primary jobs were CEO and CFO respectively of Feni Industries AD (‘Feni’), the main industrial operating subsidiary of the group, incorporated and operating in FYR Macedonia. Feni owned and operated a ferronickel production plant in Kavadarci and the Rzanovo iron and nickel mine 50 km or so south of the city.

It is necessary to give a little bit of factual background to appreciate the jurisdictional issues.

Cunico Resources NV (‘Resources’) was incorporated in the Netherlands, to become the group holding company, in May 2007. Marketing was incorporated in Dubai, UAE, in July 2007, and operated in the Jebel Ali Free Zone as the main market-facing trading entity in the group. Resources had no operating activities. It existed as a holding company for the operating subsidiaries as investment assets, with a single dedicated (full-time) employee. Marketing traded by purchasing ore from other Cunico subsidiaries, and bailing the ore to a ferronickel plant within the group under a ‘tolling agreement’, for conversion by the plant to finished ferronickel. Marketing then sold the finished product to the market. Under the tolling agreement, fees for converting Marketing’s ore into finished ferronickel would be payable by Marketing to the operator of the ferronickel plant (e.g. Feni).

The Cunico group was owned, at the time of the events said to give rise to claims against the defendants, as a joint venture between International Mineral Resources BV (‘IMR’) and BSGR Cooperatief UA (‘BSGR’). Latterly, IMR has effectively all but bought BSGR out, via the intervention of proceedings in the Amsterdam Enterprise Chamber, so that today Resources is owned as to c.80% by Summerside Investments S.a.r.l., IMR’s parent company, with 50% of the remainder owned by each of IMR and BSGR.

Now, crucially (at 6): so-called ‘Advisory Contracts’ were signed as between Marketing and each of the defendants, in 2007 and again in 2010, that contained a jurisdiction provision in these words: “In case of disagreements, they shall be solved in the Court of the United Kingdom“. The claimants say that provision gives this court jurisdiction over their respective claims against the defendants under Article 23 of the Lugano Convention. It is common ground that the defendants were domiciled in Switzerland when proceedings were brought and that the claims brought against them are within the material scope of the Lugano Convention, so indeed it governs the question of jurisdiction in this case. It is also common ground that, in this international business context, the reference in the Advisory Contracts to “the Court of the United Kingdom” should be interpreted to mean the courts of England and Wales.

Marketing claims that defendants received bonus payments from Marketing to which they were not entitled and/or to procure payment of which they acted in breach of contractual and fiduciary duties owed to it.

The principal issue is whether the claims made are matters relating to individual contracts of employment so as to engage Section 5 of the Lugano Convention. Any claims that do engage Section 5 cannot be brought in England.

At 23: For each claim advanced by each claimant against either defendant, the question of jurisdiction gives rise to the following issues in this case:

i) Is that claim a matter relating to the employment of the defendant by that claimant, for the purpose of Section 5 of the Lugano Convention?

ii) If not, is that claim within the scope of the jurisdiction provision in either of the defendant’s Advisory Contracts?

iii) If so, for a claim by Resources or Feni, does that jurisdiction provision confer on the claimant an effective benefit? (This is a question under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as each Advisory Contract was a contract only between the respective defendant and Marketing.)

Baker J decides following lengthy overview of the ’employment’ history of defendants that they were indeed employed across the group, and that Lugano’s employment heading therefore points away from jurisdiction in England. Surprisingly he does not refer at all to any CJEU precedent such as Holterman. The employment argument having succeeded, no assessment is made of Lugano’s choice of court provisions.

Geert.