Feed aggregator

William J. Moon has published an article titled “Regulating Offshore Finance” on SSRN. It can be accessed @ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3153121.

The abstract is reproduced below:

From the Panama Papers to the Paradise Papers, massive document leaks in recent years have exposed trillions of dollars hidden in small offshore jurisdictions. Attracting foreign capital with low tax rates and environments of secrecy, a growing number of offshore jurisdictions have emerged as major financial havens hosting thousands of hedge funds, trusts, banks, and insurance companies.

While the prevailing account has examined offshore financial havens as “tax havens” that facilitate the evasion or avoidance of domestic tax, this Article uncovers how offshore jurisdictions enable corporations to evade domestic regulatory law. Specifically, recent U.S. Supreme Court cases restricting the geographic scope of federal statutes have created a space for commercial actors to circumvent regulation by incorporating in offshore jurisdictions. Under this jurisprudence, financial transactions completed through offshore commercial entities are often, albeit not categorically, seen as “extraterritorial” transactions beyond the reach of federal statutes. This makes it increasingly difficult for private litigants to bring statutory claims designed to protect the workings of the market, even in cases that are predominantly connected to the United States. After documenting how offshore jurisdictions enable commercial entities to opt out of federal regulatory statutes, this Article critiques the Supreme Court’s recent extraterritoriality jurisprudence that risks breeding a cottage industry of private regulatory evasion.

L’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme n’est pas méconnu lorsque l’État renvoie un individu vers un pays ayant pris des mesures générales pour prévenir les risques de mauvais traitements prohibés par cette disposition, et que le requérant ne présente aucun élément de preuve établissant que ses conditions de détention auraient dépassé le seuil de gravité nécessaire pour constituer une telle violation. 

en lire plus

Once in a while I post on State Immunity, one of my favourites sub-themes in same being waiver of immunity, whether by contractual provision or following submission. [2018] EWHC 385 (Comm) certain underwriters at Lloyds et al v Syrian Arabic Republic et al is a good illustration of the latter. How does one serve a state which is evidently in times of political unrest? And has that State submitted to jurisdiction hence waived immunity?

Claimants’ claim in the United States District Court arose from the 1985 hijacking of EgyptAir flight 648 and the loss to which that gave rise.  Adam Johnson and colleagues at Herbert Smith alerted me to the case and their review is excellent. Henshaw J held the former issue (service) very practically: DHL evidence of documents having been delivered to the relevant ministry suffices, even if acceptance of the documents is refused.

Assessment of submission was relevant for there is no Treaty between the US and the UK on recognition and enforcement – hence common law applies. In the absence of any Convention or other instrument for mutual recognition of judgments, a foreign judgment in personam can be recognised only if it was delivered by a court which had jurisdiction according to English private international law.  That means that the defendant must either have (i) been present in the foreign jurisdiction when proceedings were commenced, (ii) claimed or counterclaimed in those proceedings, (iii) previously agreed to submit to the jurisdiction, or (iv) voluntarily have submitted himself to the overseas court’s jurisdiction (see Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236 § 7).

In the present case (i)-(iii) do not apply, so Claimants must show that the Defendants submitted to the US court’s jurisdiction. Which Henshaw J held they had. Of particular note for this blog is that he (at 59) rejects much authority for CJEU precedent, particularly C-150/80 Elefanten Schuh, held under the Brussels Convention. Even if Elefanten Schuh were to apply, Henshaw J does not believe it would have led to a different outcome. At 66 follows an extensive list of arguments leading to a conclusion of submission, with particular emphasis on Notices of Appeal, each of which included a merit-based objection to the judgment appealed from but contained no assertion that the US courts lacked jurisdiction by reason of, or that the claims were barred by, sovereign immunity.  The simple fact is that Syria at no stage made any such challenge, save very late in the process.

The judgment therefore is interesting firstly for its discussion of CJEU weight in residual conflict of laws; secondly for the Court’s view on submission and sovereign immunity – in my view very much the right one.

Geert.

 

The Department of Legal Studies of the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest and Jeantet & Partners (Paris) are organising a conference on: “The New Hungarian Arbitration Act – Views from Hungary and Abroad” on 17 May, 2018, 12:30pm – 6:30pm. The conference will be followed by a cocktail reception. This event will bring together arbitration experts from ten jurisdictions and seeks to provide a forum for discussion of the recently enacted new Hungarian Arbitration Act. It aims to inform participants of the most significant legislative changes and their practical implications. Particular emphasis will be put on a comparison of the new Hungarian Act with the arbitration laws of other jurisdictions. The organizing committee consists of Markus Petsche, Associate Professor, Department of Legal Studies, CEU; Ioana Knoll-Tudor, Partner, Jeantet & Partners, Paris; Davor Babic, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb; and Csongor István Nagy, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Szeged. For more detailed information regarding the conference program and registration, please click here.

Instruction

Elections professionnelles - Liste

In [2018] EWHC 887 (Comm) Bankas Snoras v Antonov et al, Eggers DJ considers the extent of the typical undertaking by party having obtained a worldwide freezing order, to seek permission from the English court before enforcing the order outside England and Wales or seeking an order “of a similar nature”. The need for permission underlines the appreciation of the English courts that worldwide freezing orders require some careful handling viz third States.

I am happy to refer to RPC‘s analysis for the general issues. I just wanted to turn the attention of readers of this blog to para 65 of the judgment, which considers lis alibi pendens. The claims in England (based on Article 4 Brussels I Recast – domicile of the defendants) are not the only ones that have been introduced: Lithuanian courts are engaged, too. ‘The English Civil Claim is for the in personam remedy of compensation against Mr Antonov and Mr Baranauskas arising out of an alleged breach of their duties as directors, officers or shareholders of Snoras. By contrast, the Lithuanian Civil Claim is not based on alleged breaches of directors’ duties. Instead, there are two bases of claim in the Lithuanian Civil Claim, namely (1) a claim for in personam relief under the law of unjust enrichment because there was no commercial justification for the various transactions, seeking the reversal of that unjust enrichment; and (2) a claim for a declaration that the various transfer instructions were null and void and that Snoras remains the beneficial owner of the relevant assets; this is said to be a claim for an in rem (or proprietorial) remedy.’ (at 25)

There is partial overlap, nevertheless; it is also clear that the different formulation of the Lithuanian claims is to make them lis alibi pendens-proof. Nevertheless, Eggers DJ holds that the fact remains that there are differences in the formulation of the causes of action underlying the two sets of proceedings and, in addition, the Lithuanian Civil Claim seeks proprietary relief, as well as in personam relief. Article 29 Brussels I Recast is not mentioned but it is this article and analysis of same which is engaged.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Heading 2.2.14.

Esso Raffinage / ECHA
SANT
Dans le cadre de l’appréciation de la conformité des dossiers d’enregistrement d’une substance chimique au regard du règlement REACH, l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques doit s’en tenir aux procédures prévues par le règlement

K.A. e.a.
Justice et Affaires intérieures
Les demandes de regroupement familial doivent être prises en compte même si le ressortissant d’un pays non-UE, membre de la famille d’un citoyen de l’UE n’ayant jamais exercé sa liberté de circulation, est frappé par une interdiction d’entrée sur le territoire

Čepelnik
Liberté d'établissement
L’avocat général Wahl propose à la Cour de juger qu’une législation nationale imposant au destinataire d’un service de constituer une caution afin de garantir une amende qui pourrait être infligée au prestataire du service établi dans un autre État membre pour violation de la réglementation nationale du travail est contraire au droit de l’Union

In BDO Cayman v Argyle Funds, reported  by Harneys, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands followed English and Australian authority in having an anti-suit injunction followed by a cost order against the party that had infringed choice of court. Costs including not just the domestic proceedings (that would be obvious) but also the foreign proceedings (here: in the US).

It is this type of measure which makes jurisdictions stand out and be noticed in civil procedure regulatory competition – not, as I flagged earlier, half-baked attempts to add some gloss via international business courts.

Geert.

 

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles - 9e chambre, 20 septembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises de la Côte-d'Or, 24 novembre 2017

I have flagged once or twice that the blog is a touch behind on reporting – I hope to be on top soon.

I blogged a little while ago that the Brussels Court of Appeal had sided with Facebook in their appeal against the Court of first instance’s finding of Belgian jurisdiction. I had earlier argued that the latter was wrong. These earlier skirmishes were in interim proceedings. Then, in February, the Court of First instance, unsurprisingly, reinstated its earlier finding, this time with a bit more substantial flesh to the bone.

First, a bit of Belgian surrealism. In an interlocutory ruling the court had requested FB to produce full copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment upon which it relied for some of its arguments. Perhaps given the appalling state of reporting of Belgian case-law, this finding should not surprise. Yet it remains an absurd notion that parties should produce copies at all of Belgian judgments, not in the least copies of a Court of Appeal which is literally one floor up from the Court of first instance.

Now to the judgment. The court first of all confirms that the case does not relate to private international law for the privacy commission acts iure imperii (I summarise). Then follows a very lengthy and exhaustive analysis of Belgium’s jurisdiction on the basis of public international law. Particularly given the excellent input of a number of my public international law colleagues, this part of the judgment is academically interesting nay exciting – but also entirely superfluous. For any Belgian jurisdiction grounded in public international law surely is now exhausted regulated by European law, Directive 95/46 in particular.

In finally reviewing the application of that Directive, and inevitably of course with reference to Weltimmo etc. the Court essentially assesses whether Facebook Belgium (the jurisdictional anchor) carries out activities beyond mere representation vis-a-vis the EU institutions, and finds that it does carry out commercial activities directed at Belgian users. That of course is a factual finding which requires au faitness which the employees’ activities.

Judgment is being appealed by Facebook – rightly so I believe. Of note is also that once the GDPR applies, exclusive Irish jurisdiction is clear.

Geert.

 

 

 

Enfermer un prévenu dans une cage de métal pendant une audience qui se tenait en visioconférence depuis l’établissement pénitentiaire constitue un traitement dégradant selon la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.

en lire plus

Les personnes soupçonnées d’avoir commis dans le passé des crimes de guerres peuvent faire l’objet de mesure portant atteinte à leur liberté de circulation. La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a précisé à quelles conditions ces restrictions pouvaient intervenir.

en lire plus

Christopher Whytock (Professor of Law and Political Science, UC Irvine) has published a number of interesting papers offering broad perspectives on the conflict of laws.

One is on conflict of laws and global governance and questions how conflict of laws contributes to transnational legal ordering: Whytock, Christopher A., Conflict of Laws, Global Governance, and Transnational Legal Order (March 14, 2018). UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, Vol.1, 2016; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-16. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3140886

The other is on the interaction between conflict of laws and international law: Whytock, Christopher A., Toward a New Dialogue between Conflict of Laws and International Law (March 21, 2018). American Journal of International Law (AJIL) Unbound, Vol. 110, 2016; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-22. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3145220.

 

A revised Preliminary Explanatory Report on the Judgments Project in both English and French is now available via the Hague Conference website.  This Report has been drawn up (and revised) by Professors Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain and Geneviève Saumier, McGill University, Canada.

A track-changes version of the Preliminary Explanatory Report has also been made available. See in particular the amendments contained in paragraphs 201-224 in relation to intellectual property rights, which is a subject that has been somewhat controversial. Other important additions are the declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to governments (see paragraphs 344-352) and the declarations with respect to common courts (such as regional courts, see paragraphs 353-360).

A Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments will be held on 24-29 May 2018 in The Hague, the Netherlands. The agenda is available here. It is envisaged that a Diplomatic Session (i.e. a high-level negotiation with a view to adopting a final text) will be held in mid-2019.

Please note that the meetings above-mentioned are open only to delegates or experts designated by the Members of the Hague Conference, invited non-Member States and International Organisations that have been granted observer status.

Abel e.a. / Commission
Le Tribunal de l’UE rejette l’action en indemnité engagée par près de 1 500 personnes suite à l’adoption par la Commission d’un règlement de 2016 sur les émissions polluantes des véhicules

La condamnation d’un avocat à un avertissement pour avoir, juste après le prononcé d’un verdict, imputé à un jury criminel une partialité résultant de préjugés raciaux, est jugée contraire à l’article 10.  

en lire plus