
by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.
The Spanish airline Vueling Airlines S.A is still intending to acquire large parts of the NIKI business. Vueling is part of the European aviation group IAG, which also includes British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingus and LEVEL. The provisional insolvency administrator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH, therefore, will continue to drive the sales process. Vueling has provided interim financing of up to € 16.5 million to finance the NIKI business until the closing of the purchase agreement. This funding is only sufficient for a few weeks.
Meanwhile, NIKI has lodged an appeal with the Federal Court against the ruling by the Regional Court of Berlin. Due to the legal complaint of the NIKI management against the decision, it does not have legal force yet. The preliminary insolvency proceeding in Germany therefore continues.
NIKI is expected to apply for the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings in Austria by the end of the week, as well. According to the provisional insolvency administrator of NIKI this procedure is an important step to ensure the orderly processing of NIKI in Austria. In addition, the purchase agreement for the NIKI business should now be secured at short notice via this Austrian secondary process.
It remains to be seen how the German Federal Court deals with the question of the rebuttal of the assumption that NIKI’s COMI is located in Austria (the place of its registered office). It is even possible that the ECJ has to deal with this question for a second time after the Eurofood IFSC (Case C-341/04) case. As we will probably see a secondary proceeding commenced in Austria (NIKI seems to be one of the rare cases where the insolvency administrator of the main proceeding finds the commencement of a secondary proceeding useful for the success of the administration) we might even witness the application of some of the new rules of the EIR on the cooperation and coordination of main and secondary proceedings.
Les articles 27 et 30 de la Convention de Lugano du 30 octobre 2007 doivent être interprétés en ce sens que, en cas de litispendance, la date à laquelle a été engagée une procédure obligatoire de conciliation devant une autorité de conciliation de droit suisse constitue la date à laquelle une « juridiction » est réputée saisie.
Symeon Symeonides has posted on SSRN his 31st annual survey of American choice-of-law cases. The survey covers appellate cases decided by American state and federal courts during 2017. It can be found here https://ssrn.com/abstract=3093709 The table of contents is reproduced below.
Symeonides has also posted his annual Private International Law Bibliography for 2017. It can be found here https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094215.
31st Choice-of-Law Survey Table of Contents
Introduction
Part I. Jurisdiction
Part II. Extraterritoriality (or Non) of Federal Law
Part III. Choice of Law
Part IV. Foreign Judgments and Awards
Entreprises en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005)
Thank you Bob Wessels for again alerting us (with follow-up here and also reporting by Lukas Schmidt here) timely to a decision this time by the German courts in Niki, applying the Insolvency Regulation 2015, on the determination of COMI – Centre of Main Interests. Bob’s review is excellent per usual hence I am happy to refer for complete background.
Of particular note is the discussion on the extent of a court’s duty to review jurisdiction ex officio; the court’s correct assumption that in the event of foggy circumstances, the EIR’s presumption of COMI at the place of incorporation must have priority; and finally in my view the insufficient weight the court places on ascertainability by third parties.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.6.1.
Interestingly enough the issue of inclusion of foreign victims in class action suits came up in conversation around our dining room the other day. (Our youngest daughter, 15, is showing encouraging signs of an interest in a legal career). In 2017 ONCA 792 Airia Brands Inc v Air Canada is reviewed excellently by Dentons here and I am happy to refer. (See also here for Norton Rose reporting on related cases – prior to the CA’s decision in Airia Brands).
The jurisdiction and ‘real and substantial connection’ analysis referred to Van Breda (which recently also featured mutatis mutandis in the forum necessitatis analysis in Cook).
Certification of global classes was part of the classic analysis of developments in international class action suits, which hit us a few years back when many EU states started introducing it. Airia Brands shows that the concerns are far from settled.
Geert.
Le défaut de délivrance d’un permis de communiquer à chacun des avocats désignés par la personne mise en examen avant le débat contradictoire relatif à l’éventuelle prolongation de la détention provisoire fait nécessairement grief au mis en examen.
La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) juge que les condamnations successives, correctionnelle et criminelle, de l’un des auteurs des attentats de Paris commis en 1995 sont conformes à la Convention au regard des articles 6, § 1 (droit à un procès équitable) et 4 (droit à ne pas être jugé ou puni deux fois), du protocole n° 7.
Par cet arrêt, la Cour de cassation est amenée à se prononcer sur l’exercice des droits de la défense dans le cadre de la poursuite pénale d’infractions fiscales au regard des garanties de l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer