Agrégateur de flux

Copropriété

Bail commercial

Copropriété

Inter-Environnement Wallonie et Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen
Environnement et consommateurs
L’avocate générale Kokott estime que la loi belge prolongeant la durée de vie des centrales nucléaires de Doel 1 et de Doel 2 a été adoptée sans les évaluations environnementales préalables requises

In [2018] EWHC 3098 (Ch) Stripes US, Smith J deals with jurisdiction for schemes of arrangement in the now well established way (see my last report on same in Algeco):

The EU’s Insolvency Regulation is clearly not engaged: the schemes fall under company law. The High Court then applies the jurisdictional test viz the Brussels I Recast Regulation arguendo: if it were to apply (which the English Courts have taken no definitive stance on), would an English court have jurisdiction? Yes, it is held: under Article 8 (anchor defendants).

The issue in fact splits in two: so far as the question of jurisdiction in relation to a foreign (non-EU or Lugano States based) company is concerned (Stripes US is incorporated in Delaware), the law is clear. It is well-established that the court has jurisdiction to sanction a Scheme in relation to a company provided that company is liable to be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986.

Turning next to the Scheme Creditors, of the 31 Scheme Creditors, 19.4% by number (26.35% by value) of the ‘defendants’ (an odd notion perhaps in the context of a Scheme sanction) are domiciled in the UK, plenty Smith J holds to suggest enough reason for anchoring: not taking jurisdiction vis-a-vis the defendants domiciled in other Member States, would carry with it a serious risk of irreconcilable judgments.

Finally the case for forum non conveniens (and comity) is considered (vis-a-vis the US defendant), and rejection of jurisdiction summarily dismissed: in this case the relevant agreement which is the subject of the Scheme has a governing law which is (and, I understand, always has been) English law: at 63: ‘Generally speaking, that is enough to establish a sufficient connection. The view is that under generally accepted principles of private international law, a variation or discharge of contractual rights in accordance with the governing law of the contract should be done by the court of that law and will be given effect to in other third-party countries.’ US experts moreover advised any judgment would most probably have no difficulty being enforced in the US

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 5.

 

Par un arrêt du 15 novembre 2018, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se penche sur la notion de matière civile et commerciale utilisée par le règlement du 12 décembre 2012 pour définir son champ d’application matériel, à propos d’un litige relatif à des obligations émises par un État membre et achetées par un particulier avant que ces obligations ne fassent l’objet d’un échange.

en lire plus

Contrat de travail - Formation

Séparation des pouvoirs

Klyuyev / Conseil
Relations extérieures
La demande en référé de M. Andriy Klyuyev, l’ancien chef de l’administration du président ukrainien, visant à surseoir à l’exécution de mesures restrictives, est rejetée

Tribunal Correctionnel de Bayonne, 15 novembre 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 2, chambre 11, 2 décembre 2017

La saveur d’un produit alimentaire ne peut être qualifiée d’« œuvre » et, partant, ne peut pas bénéficier d’une protection au titre du droit d’auteur.

en lire plus