Tag: Forum shopping

Posted on

Soriano v Forensic News. Court of Appeal confirms high bar to disciplining discovery forum shopping.

Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 223 deals with the discipline an English court should hand out to defendants trying to use foreign proceedings and their discovery rules, to assist them in the defence of a claim (here a libel claim) in England and Wales. (Defendants’ attempt at dismissing jurisdiction had earlier failed).

In a joint and fairly succinct opinion, Voss MR, Carr LJ and Warby LJ dismiss the contention that the defendants should be served with an anti-suit injunction (also refused at first instance by Murray J a mere 20 days back; this was a most swift appeal) to restrain them from continuing US proceedings. These had been initiated in the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the DCSDNY) on 6 December 2022. Defendants seek an order there requiring HSBC USA to produce two very broad categories of banking documents relating to Mr Soriano’s companies. Defendants here, claimants in the US, rely in 28 USC §1782 (a so-called 1782 application) allowing a US court to provide assistance to an applicant in gathering evidence in support of legal proceedings in a foreign court. It provides that: “[t]he district court … may order [a person] to … produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign … tribunal”, and “[t]he order may be made … upon the application of any interested person”.

The Court of Appeal relied like the judge on the grounds per South Carolina Insurance Co v. Assurantie Maatschappij “De Zeven Provincien” NV [1987] 1 AC 24 to find that defendants were not guilty  of “conduct which [was] oppressive or vexatious or which [interfered] with the due process of the court” in seeking the US order.

In essence, the Court supports the lawful exercise of evidence gathering and does not easily decide that use of foreign proceeding for same be considered oppressive.

Geert.

Posted on

East-West Logistics v Melars. A good reminder of the strength of a company’s place of incorporation as a presumption of Centre of Main Interests (insolvency).

A bit of a late follow-up to a 1 November Tweet but hey ho, I have been a tad busy and it is nevertheless good to still have the post up.

East-West Logistics Llp v Melars Group Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1419 is a good reminder of the importance of ascertainability by third parties for determination of a corporation’s Centre of Main Interests – COMI. The appeal against Miles J’s finding in [2021] EWHC 1523 (Ch) was rejected and Malta as place of COMI confirmed.

The Company was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands -BVI and entered into a charterparty with the Petitioner in December 2011 for a shipment to Turkmenistan. The address of the Company in the charterparty was stated to be in the BVI. The charterparty contained a clause providing for disputes to be resolved by arbitration in London under English law. Following a disputed shipment, the Petitioner tried to but failed to launch LCIA arbitration (the tribunal holding it did not have jurisdiction), followed by successful proceedings in BVI resulting in a judgment in default against the company, which the latter later managed to have set aside. Without notifying the Petitioner, the Company had in the meantime moved its place of incorporation, and hence its registered office, to Malta.

On 19 July 2016 the Petitioner then presented a winding up petition in London based upon its BVI judgment debt. The Petition alleged that COMI of the Company was in the UK, citing pro UK as COMI [11] (prima facie rather flimsily) that i) the six commercial contracts concluded by the Company of which the Petitioner was aware (including its own charterparty) were in the English language, were governed by English law and had arbitration clauses providing for arbitration in London; and ii) the Company participated in the LCIA arbitration in London and was represented by a London firm (or firms) of solicitors. Against Malta as COMI, it suggested i) the Company did not actually have an office there, its registered office address being that of a Cypriot law firm providing company administration services; ii) the Company did not have any employees or conduct any business in Malta; iii) the Company’s sole director was a nominee who was a Swiss national, resident in South Africa; and iv) the Company’s sole shareholder and principals were Russian.

Baister J made a winding-up order, citing [20] the forum shopping background and the corporation not much being involved in physical, rather virtual trade, deciding ‘ by a narrow margin and with misgivings, that on balance the greater use of English law for contracts, the greater use of London as a seat of arbitration, the actual recourse to or forced involvement in legal proceedings here and the consequential use of English lawyers makes the UK, on the balance of probabilities, the main centre of those interests. The company’s affairs seem to have been conducted in this country more than in Switzerland [SW plays a role because of a Swiss national, GAVC],  certainly as far as contractual and litigation interests were concerned, although it is, I accept, hard to be precise.”

That judgment was overruled on appeal, with Miles J concluding ‘that Judge Baister had erred in principle in three ways in his approach to the determination of the Company’s COMI. The first was in relation to the importance of the presumption in Article 3(1), the second was in relation to the concept of ascertainability, and the third was in failing to distinguish between matters of administration of the company’s interests and matters going to the operation of its business.’

Upon further appeal, Lewison LJ agreed with Miles J. [46] ‘lack of evidence that the debtor actually carries out any activities at the place of its registered office does not allow the court to ignore or disregard the legal presumption under Article 3(1).’

He is right! [47] ‘The court must be alert to detect fraudulent or abusive forum shopping by purported changes of COMI by a debtor’ however ‘the question in such cases is whether the move of COMI is real or illusory. It is not whether the move of the debtor’s registered office is real or illusory.’

[63] “the court should not invent a hypothetical “typical” third party creditor with “average” or “normal” characteristics, and form a view on what might (or might not) have been apparent to that creditor in the course of a notional dealing by him with the company. Neither the EU Regulation nor the jurisprudence of the CJEU refer to the concept of a “typical” creditor, but refer instead, and more generically, to “creditors” or “third parties”.”

[80] “none of the factors relied upon by the Petitioner were, individually or collectively, sufficient to establish that the Company actually conducted the administration of its interests on a regular basis in England (or any other particular location) so as to displace the presumption in favour of Malta under Article 3(1).”

One’s intuition in a case like this may be not to have much sympathy for a corporation engaging in COMI /seat forum shopping. However that intuition is not reflected in the Regulation’s presumptive treatment of incorporation as COMI.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 5.6.1.

Posted on

Asian Offshore Services v Self Elevating Platform – SEP. A sloppy conclusion on ‘Principal place of business’ in Brussels Ia.

I am mopping up draft posts so forgive me if some of them are a touch late compared to my original report on them on Twitter.  Asian Offshore Services v Self Elevating Platform ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:34 of the Court of First Instance at Rotterdam is an interesting illustration of the positive conflicts rule of Article 4 juncto Article 63 Brussels Ia.

Article 4’s domicile rule is supplemented by Article 63’s definition of domicile for legal persons:

Article 63:

1.   For the purposes of this Regulation, a company or other legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its: statutory seat [Dutch: statutaire zetel]; central administration; [Dutch: hoofdbestuur] or principal place of business [Dutch: hoofdvestiging].

2.   For the purposes of Ireland, Cyprus and the United Kingdom, ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place.

3.   In order to determine whether a trust is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, the court shall apply its rules of private international law.

A63 may lead to so-called positive conflicts: more than one court considering itself to be the domicile of the defendant. This is interesting nota bene in the case of business and human rights cases where claimants may want to forum shop and sue in the EU, such as in Anglo American.

In the case at issue, the court first of all [4.2] dismisses the parties’ awkward consensus [4.1] that neither Brussels Ia, nor any international Treaty determines jurisdiction. Clearly Brussels Ia does apply (claimant is domiciled at Kuala Lumpur; defendant registered in Curaçao) and the Court applies it proprio motu.

The court then points to the statutory seat in Curaçao, and [4.9] notes SEP’s lack of contestation that Sliedrecht is its ‘fixed place of business’ as testified by an extract from the local commercial register. Now I a may be a stickler for language here but a fixed place of business is not the same as the principal place of business (which implies main business activities). It is the latter which the Regulation requires.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.131 ff.

Posted on

Teva UK v Novartis. Court of Appeal confirms restraint in abetting forum shopping in aid of German proceedings.

The Court of Appeal in Teva UK Ltd & Anor v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617 has reaffirmed the principle that while it is not as such unkosher to petition the English courts subsequently to use the spin-off value of that judgment in other jurisdictions (related in some way to using English courts for discovery purposes), it is not proper for E&W courts to make a declaration solely for the purpose of influencing a decision by a foreign court on an issue governed by the law of that very foreign court (here: Germany).

In the case at issue, the claim involves an Arrow declaration (a declaration that a product, process or use was lacking in novelty or obvious as at the priority date of a patent application) with respect to a German patent (admittedly subject to European law which is largely harmonised with the UK approach).

Per Arnold LJ [51-52]

It is not the function of the courts of England and Wales to provide advisory opinions to foreign courts seised of issues which fall to be determined in accordance with their own laws. The English courts have no special competence to determine such issues. If anything, it is likely that they have less competence than the local courts. It makes no difference that the English court and the foreign court are applying the same basic law. Furthermore, comity requires restraint on the part of the English courts, not (to adopt Floyd LJ’s graphic phrase) jurisdictional imperialism. Otherwise the English courts would be enabling forum shopping.

In saying this, I am assuming that the parties have full and unimpeded access to the foreign court. I recognise that the position might possibly be different if that were not the position; but it is not necessary to consider this further for the purposes of the present case, since there is no suggestion that either of these parties lacks full and unimpeded access to the courts of Germany or Country A.

Geert.

Posted on

Kumlin v Jonsonn. Judge dismisses jurisdiction for most of Swedish businessman’s libel claim, defusing what is said to be a SLAPP suit.

Kumlin & Anor v Jonsson & Ors [2022] EWHC 1095 (QB) disciplines forum shopping, in this case libel tourism, in a claim that is considered a SLAPP: a Strategic Lawsuit against public participation.

First Claimant is an entrepreneur, businessman and investor in sustainable and ethical business ventures, resident in Monaco, with business interests in the UK including in the Second Claimant, of which he is the founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. He is a Swedish citizen. Second Claimant is a public limited company registered in England and Wales. Claimants’ case is that between 29 September 2020 and 2 November 2020 the Defendants, or some of them, all of whom are Swedish, published or caused to be published on the Website eight articles concerning the Claimants. There was further publication via Facebook, Twitter, etc, where links to the Articles were posted. 

The Articles are in Swedish. Knowles J [30] advances the reasoning, proposed by defendants, that jurisdiction under any of the gateways as a result of A4 BIa, locus damni or locus delicti commissi (A7(2) BIa per CJEU Bier and Shevill), or centre of interests (A7(2) BIa, per CJEU eDate and Bolagsupplysningen) only exist to the degree the case is actually actionable in those cases which, he submits, requires reference to the domestic laws of those Member States (e.g. a minimum ‘publication’ threshold). I believe this is incorrect: jurisdiction and actionability are not the same. While lex fori on threshold issues will have an immediate impact on the practical reality of a claim, it does not stand in the way of principled jurisdiction under BIa, which exists without reference to national laws.

The judge refers to much CJEU and E&W authority, all of it discussed on this blog, most recently the Court of Appeal in Mincione.

Knowles J’s discussion eg [69] ff of the intensity of publication etc required, under residual double actionability rules, in my view is a threshold question and not, as it is presented, a jurisdictional, gateway question, albeit the analysis in this section is mixed with justifiable discussion of direct v indirect damage under the CJEU Marinari rule. The judgment is much more extensive on this point than it could have been in my opinion.

[224] it is concluded that on the centre of interest issue, which is relevant for the natural person claimant only, his centre of interests is Monaco, where he is habitually resident. That is a factual assessment which is unlikely to be material for an appeal.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.439 ff.

Posted on

Galapagos Bidco v DE. The CJEU fails to clarify whether move of COMI by mere market notice, may be effective.

Krzysztof Pacula reported end of March on CJEU C-723/20 Galapagos Bidco v DE and justifiably highlighted the Brexit issue. The case concerns a move of COMI – centre of main interest within the context of the Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 and it is on the element of impromptu move that my post will focus.

Galapagos SA is a Luxembourg holding company whose centre of administration (‘effective place of management‘ according to the former directors) was moved in June 2019, at least so contend previous directors, to England. At the end of August 2019, they apply to the High Court in England and Wales to have insolvency proceedings opened.

Echos of the tussle are here and of course also in Galapagos Bidco SARL v Kebekus & ors [2021] EWHC 68 (Ch). The day after the move of centre of administration, the former directors were replaced with one other, who moved centre of administration to Dusseldorf and issued relevant market regulation statements to that effect. This move was subsequently recognised  by the Courts at Dusseldorf as having established COMI there. The High Court action in London was never withdrawn and would seem to have been dormant since.

Applicant in the proceedings is Galapagos BIDCO Sarl, a creditor of Galapagos SA. It is I understand (but I am happy to be corrected by those in the know) Luxembourg based. As Krzysztof reports, it contests that the German move has effected move of COMI which it argues lies in England (although I fail to see how its reasoning should not also apply to the earlier instant move from presumably Luxembourg to England).

The question that arises is whether, in the determination of the centre of a debtor company’s main interests, specific requirements must be imposed to prevent abusive conduct. Specifically, in the light of the Regulation’s stated aim of preventing forum shopping, whether ‘on a regular basis’ in the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) Insolvency Regulation 2015, presupposes an adequate degree of permanence and is not present if the establishment of a centre of administration is pursued at the same time as a request to have insolvency proceedings opened. Respondents in the appeal, which include the insolvency administrator (trustee) contend that the requirement of administration ‘on a regular basis’ is fulfilled if the administration is permanent.

The CJEU unfortunately fails to answer that question, choosing to reply instead with a hierarchical answer which encourages race to court: [36]

the court of a Member State with which a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is moved to another Member State after that request is lodged, but before that court has delivered a decision on that request, and that, consequently, where a request is lodged subsequently for the same purpose before a court of another Member State, that court cannot, in principle, declare that it has jurisdiction to open such proceedings until the first court has delivered its decision and declined jurisdiction.

However in the case at issue, the Withdrawal Agreement has the effect that if the High Court has not, as it would seem, taken its decision on the opening of proceedings prior to the end of Brexit Implementation Day 1 January 2021 (CET), the German courts need no longer apply that consequence of mutual trust and are at liberty to determine the existence of COMI.

The CJEU ends by suggesting Q1 no longer needs answering. Yet I think it does. Perhaps not so much for the case at issue (which explains why the judicially economical CJEU does not offer a reply). The German courts, as Zacaroli J notes in his decision [14], held in October 2019 that COMI for GAS has successfully moved to Germany as from 25 August 2019, the day the capital market and bondholders were informed that the centre of administration had been moved to Düsseldorf. Yet the file does not suggest that COMI prior to the attempted move, existed in either the UK or Germany: it was allegedly established in Germany following the new director’s decision, which reversed an earlier impromptu decision by the former directors to ostensibly at least move COMI to the UK. In accordance with the Regulation’s presumptions, COMI would have previously existed in Luxembourg. The element of ‘on a regular basis’ therefore still matters. Is the CJEU suggesting that a mere information of the capital markets suffices to move COMI?

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 5.6.1.

Posted on

Abusive forum shopping in defamation suits. The Parliament study on SLAPPs.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – SLAPPs (I look at them comparatively in my Monash Strategic and Public Interest Litigation Unit, LAW5478) are a well-known tool to silence critics. Based on defamation, they (or the threat with them) aim to shut down the voice of opposition. Not many find the energy, financial resources and nerves to fight a protected libel suit in court.

The EP recently published the study led by Justin Borg-Barthet and carried out by him and fellow researchers at the University of Aberdeen. At the substantive level, distinguishing between SLAPPs and genuine defamation suits is not straightforward. As Justin et al point out, there is an important private international law element to the suits, too. Clearly, a claimant will wish to sue in a claimant-friendly libel environment. Moreover, where a deep-pocketed claimant can sue in various jurisdictions simultaneously, this compounds the threat.

The Brussels and Lugano regime is particularly suited to the use of SLAPPs as a result of the CJEU case-law on Article 7(2) forum delicti. The Handlungsort /Erfolgort distinction as such already tends to add jurisdictional gateways. In more recent years this has been compounded by the additional ‘centre of interests’ gateway per CJEU e-Date and Bolagsupplysningen – even if this was recently somewhat contained by the Court in Mittelbayerischer Verlag. As I have flagged before, Brussels Ia’s DNA is not supportive of disciplining abusive forum shopping, as illustrated ia in competition law and intellectual property law cases.

For these reasons, the report (Heading 4, p.33 ff) suggests dropping the availability of Article 7(2) and sticking to Article 4 domicile jurisdiction, supplemented with (unlikely) choice of court.

The European Parliament more than the European Commission has picked up the defamation issues both for BIa and for applicable law under Rome II (from which the issue is hitherto exempt; the report reviews the applicable law issues, too). It remains to be seen whether with this report in hand, Parliament will manage to encourage the EC to pick up the baton.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.431 ff, 4.24 ff.

 

Posted on

The CJEU in Wikingerhof on distinguishing tort from contract between contracting parties. No Valhalla for those seeking further clarification of Brogsitter, let alone De Bloos.

Update 25 November 10:38 AM:  Readers  may want to refer to the discussion posted to Tobias Lutzi’s view on the case, which I will not copy /paste here save for my initial reply: ‘I believe Tobias’ biggest take-away from the judgment is the Court’s emphasis on ‘indispensability’ of contractual interpretation for A(7)1 to be triggered (he will correct me if I am wrong).
As I argue in my review of the judgment, I think that’s a change of emphasis viz Brogsitter and e.g. Apple v eBizcuss rather than a change in nature of the CJEU approach.
However assuming one applies the authority that courts must not dwell too long on merits in assessing jurisdictional gateways, it does follow that A7(1) will only be engaged in those cases where the contract prima facie is overwhelmingly needed to solve the underlying dispute. This still leaves room for manoeuvre for the creative claimant (see also the AG’s points on forum shopping), but not as much as might have been expected prior to this judgment.’

 

The CJEU held yesterday (Tuesday) in C-59/19 Wikingerhof v Booking.com. I reviewed the AG’s Opinion here and the Court follows the AG’s minimalist interpretation. The case was held in Grand Chamber, which might have provoked expectations yet the judgment is not exactly a bang. Neither however can it be described a whimper. As I note in my review of the Opinion, the case in my view could have been held acte clair. The AG did take the opportunity in his Opinion to discuss many issues which the CJEU was bound not to entertain, at least not in as much detail as the AG did.

Let me first signal what I believe might be the biggest take-away of the litigation, if at least the referring court is followed. That is the Bundesgerichtshof’s finding that  there is no durable record of the alleged consent by Wikingerhof of the amended GTCs, including choice of court, effected via amendments on the ‘Extranet’, which is the portal via which the hotel may update its information and retrieve reservations. Booking.com claimed these amounted to a ‘form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves’ pursuant to Article 25(1)(b). Parties will still argue on the merits whether the initial consent to the primary GTCs was strong-armed because of booking.com’s dominant position.

With respect to to the jurisdictional issue, the CJEU in a succinct judgment firstly points to the need for restrictive interpretation. It points at 29 to the claimant being the trigger of A7(1) or (2). Without a claimant’s decision to base a claim on the Articles, they simply do not get to be engaged. That is a reference to the forum shopping discussion of the AG. Still, the court hearing the action must assess whether the specific conditions laid down by those provisions are  met.

At 32, with reference to Brogsitter, ‘an action concerns matters relating to a contract within the meaning of [A7(1)(a) BIa] if the interpretation of the contract between the defendant and the applicant appears indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter’.  ‘That is in particular the case of an action based on the terms of a contract or on rules of law which are applicable by reason of that contract’ (reference to Holterman and to Kareda, with the latter itself referring to De Bloos). At 33  ‘By contrast, where the applicant relies, in its application, on rules of liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict, namely breach of an obligation imposed by law, and where it does not appear indispensable to examine the content of the contract concluded with the defendant in order to assess whether the conduct of which the latter is accused is lawful or unlawful, since that obligation applies to the defendant independently of that contract, the cause of the action is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’.

At 32 therefore the CJEU would seem to confirm De Bloos’ awkward (given the Regulation’s attention to predictability) support for forum shopping based on claim formulation yet corrected by what is more akin to Sharpston AG’s approach in Ergo and the Court’s approach in Apple v eBizcuss, a judgment not referred in current judgment: namely that the judge will have to consider whether contractual interpretation is strictly necessary (the Court uses ‘indispensable’) to judge the case on the merits. Update 25 November 2020 as Tobias Lutzi notes here, it is the repeated (after its first use in Brogsitter) emphasis on ‘indispensable’ which might be the core clue of the CJEU: it would make the threshold for the 7(1) gateway in cases like these, high. A change in emphasis compared to Brogsitter, rather than one in substance.

Here, Wikingerhof rely on statutory German competition law (at 34-36): therefore the claim is one covered by Article 7(2).

The judgment confirms the now very fine thread between jurisdictional and merits review for the purposes of tort-based litigation between two contracting parties.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9. 3rd ed. 2021 para 2.469.

 

Posted on

No instant forum coffee. Selecta: Some more substantial reflection on jurisdiction for schemes of arrangement.

In Selecta Finance UK Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 2689 (Ch) Johnson J considered the jurisdictional issues for schemes of arrangement in a touch more detail than recently has been the regular method in both convening and sanctioning hearings.

Selecta Finance UK Limited is a most recent addition to the ‘Selecta’ group , having been established only on 13 August 2020. (Selecta is said to be the leading provider of unattended self-service coffee and convenience food in Europe).  The Scheme concerns three series of senior secured Notes (“the Existing SSNs“), which have an aggregate principal amount of €1.24 billion plus CHF 250 million. The Existing SSNs were issued originally not by the Company but by Selecta Group BV, its parent company incorporated in the Netherlands. They were issued pursuant to a Trust Deed dated 2 February 2018 , and were originally governed by New York law and subject to a provision for the New York Courts to have exclusive jurisdiction.

With reference to authority, Johnson J accepts that the relevant parties in interest who qualify as the Scheme Creditors are the ultimate beneficial owners of the Existing SSNs. By 14 September 2020, the Existing SSN Holders holding a majority by value of the Existing SSNs had provided their consent to (among others) the following key changes to the terms of the SSNs:  i) Amendment of the governing law provisions of the Trust Deed so that the Existing SSNs are governed by English rather than New York law. ii) Amendment of the jurisdiction provisions of the Trust Deed so that the Existing SSNs are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court in relation to any proceedings commenced by an obligor of the Existing SSNs, and the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English Court in relation to other proceedings; iii) Accession of the Company to the Trust Deed as a co-issuer of the Existing SSNs.

At 18 it is said that an expert report on US and New York law confirms that the amendments to the governing law and jurisdiction clauses of the Trust Deed are valid under New York law and would be regarded as effective in any United States court applying that law.

The relevance of that finding for unwilling SSNs beneficiaries, I would argue, is not undisputedly established under Article 10 and Article 3(2) Rome I.

 

The Company then entered into a Supplemental Trust Deed on 14 September 2020 and thereby became a co-issuer of the Existing SSNs under the Trust Deed. As Johnson J notes at 44: it is only by means of the Supplemental Trust Deed that the Company became co-issuer of the Existing SSNs, and that the governing law and jurisdiction provisions were changed so as to refer to English law and jurisdiction.

It is clear that a jurisdictional link with England & Wales has been established specifically for the purpose of a company taking advantage of the scheme provisions in English law. With reference to Newey J in Re Codere Finance (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 3778 (Ch) which I reviewed here, this is held to be ‘good forum shopping’.

Article 25 Brussels Ia jurisdiction is only possible by means of the amendments to the Trust Deed effected via the Supplemental Trust Deed, as I also noted above. As I suggest there, had there been recalcitrant minority Note holders objecting to the change in court and law clause, I think the Scheme would not have been jurisdictionally home and dry on A25 choice of court grounds.

The next classic consideration is under Article 8(1)’s anchor defendant mechanism seeing as jurisdiction against the company is established per Article 4.

At 53 reference is made to Snowden J. who in Van Gansewinkel has suggested that in determining whether A8(1) applies, the Court is required to consider whether the “numbers and size of the scheme creditors domiciled in [the UK]” are “sufficiently large“: the result of that instruction is that applicants tend to point out the (debt) size of the creditors so domiciled, even if in DTEK Newey J held that size and number are irrelevant, ditto in Lecta Paper and Swissport Fuelling. Update 27 October 2020 the disparity on the need for size and number is also noted by Miles J in New Look Financing PLC, Re [2020] EWHC 2793 (Ch).

At 54 comes Johnson J’s obiter, useful finding:

Speaking for myself, I incline to the view that the presence of a single creditor is a necessary, but not of itself a sufficient, condition to the operation of Art. 8. I say that because in terms the power conferred by Art. 8 is engaged where “any one of” a number of defendants is domiciled in England & Wales, but even then the power is to be exercised only in cases where the language of the proviso in Art. 8 is satisfied – i.e., where the claims against the various defendants are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. I did not hear detailed argument on the meaning of this language, and in any event the application before me was uncontested, and so I express my view on it somewhat tentatively; but tentatively it seems to me that the question of expediency posed by the proviso is rather less about the geographical distribution in terms of number and size of the prospective defendants, and is rather more about the expediency in case management terms of connected claims being resolved in one place, even if only one anchor defendant is domiciled there. The argument in this case is that it is expedient for the claims against all EU domiciled Scheme Creditors to be resolved in one place, i.e. in England & Wales, because such claims all relate to the reorganisation of their indebtedness vis-à-vis the Company, and these Courts are best placed to resolve such questions given the separate jurisdiction they exercise over the Company under CA Part 26. Indeed, they may be uniquely placed to do so.

Opposition to the Scheme’s jurisdiction tends to evaporate once it gets to the convening and hearing stage. This is typically because the opposing creditors tend to by that stage be converted to the necessity of restructuring and the unattractiveness of having to pursue debt collection against a corporation in serious financial difficulty. As a result nearly all precedent is first instance only.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 2, Chapter 5. Third edition forthcoming February 2021.

Posted on

Restructuring tourism and Virgin Atlantic. The first application of England’s new Restructuring Plan leaves the jurisdictional issue hanging.

Update 12 May 2021 Snowden J ([2021] EWHC 1246 (Ch)) has now also sanctioned the scheme.  He noted [316] the unchallenged expert evidence suggesting likely recognition in jurisdictions with non-UK guarantors of the Senior Facilities Agreement (SIN, AUS, IT) and also those whose law governs small number of lease guarantees (SP, PORT). This does not of course rule out future circumstances where such evidence may be challenged, depending I imagine on the nature of the cram-down (eg re ownership of shares).

I flagged [2020] EWHC 2191 (Ch) Virgin Atlantic (the plan in the meantime has been sanctioned in [2020] EWHC 2376 (Ch)) in an update of my earlier post on the Colouroz Investment Scheme of Arrangement.

Restructuring practitioners have been justifiably excited by this new addition to England’s regulatory competition in restructuring tourism.

In my many posts on Schemes of Arrangements (see in particular Apcoa with the many references to later cases in that post; and Lecta Paper), I have summarised the modus operandi: no firm decision on jurisdiction under Brussels Ia is made (it is by no means certain but scheme creditors have so far not taken much of a swipe seeing as they tend to accept the attraction of the debtor company continuing as  a going concern following the use of an English scheme). If at least one of the creditors is domiciled in England, it is considered sued and a defendant per Article 4 Brussels Ia. Other, non-England domiciled creditors are then pulled into English jurisdiction using the one anchor defendant per Article 8(1). Trower J extends that assumption to Restructuring Plans at 58 ff:

      1. It is now well-established that an application for sanction of a Part 26 scheme is a civil or commercial matter and the reasoning seems to me to apply with equal force to a Part 26A restructuring plan. However, it has never been completely determined whether the rule laid down in Article 4(1) of the Regulation, that any person domiciled in an EU member state must (subject to any applicable exception) be sued in the courts of that member state, also applies to a Part 26 scheme, although the matter has been referred to and debated in a number of cases.
      1. In the present case, I shall adopt the usual practice of assuming without deciding that Chapter II and, therefore, Article 4 of the Recast Judgments Regulation applies to these proceedings on the basis that Plan Creditors are being sued by the company and that they are defendants, or to be treated as defendants, to the application to sanction the scheme. If, on the basis of that assumption, the court has jurisdiction because one of the exceptions to Article 4 applies, then there is no need to determine whether the assumption is correct and I will not do so.
      1. In the present case, the Company relies on the exception provided for by Article 8 of the Recast Judgments Regulation. By Article 8, a defendant who is domiciled outside a member state may be sued in that member state provided that another defendant in the same action is domiciled there and provided that it is expedient to hear the claims against both together to avoid risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting in separate proceedings. The consequence of this is that if sufficient scheme creditors are domiciled in England then Article 8(1) confers jurisdiction on the English court to sanction a scheme affecting the rights of creditors domiciled elsewhere in the EU, so long as it is expedient to do so, which it normally will be (see, for example, Re DTEK Finance Plc [2017] BCC 165 and [2016] EWHC 3563 (Ch) at the convening and sanctioning stages).
    1. and concluding at 61
      1. In the present case, the evidence is that at least one Plan Creditor from each class is domiciled in the jurisdiction. Perhaps most importantly, so far as in terms of Trade Plan Creditors, it is 90 out of 168. In my view, this is amply sufficient to ensure that the requirements of Article 8 are satisfied.’

Article 25 BIa jurisdiction is obiter dismissed at 62 for not all creditors have credit arrangements subject to English choice of court.

Restructuring Plans do have features which differ from Schemes of Arrangement and some of those do trigger different considerations at the recognition and enforcement level than have hitherto been the case for Schemes.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 2, Chapter 5. Note: 3rd of the Handbook is forthcoming (February 2021).

%d bloggers like this: