Posts Tagged Nomura

Be careful what you ask for! Barclays v ENPAM: the High Court again employs Article 27/28 to neutralise Italian torpedo.

Barclays v ENPAM has been travelling in my briefcase for some time – apologies. Reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alexandros, and the High Court in Nomura , Blair J in October 2015 employed national courts’ room under Article 27/28 of the Brussels I Regulation (the lis alibi pendens and related actions rules) to refuse a stay of English proceedings in favour of proceedings in (of course) Italy. Litigation like this will be somewhat less likely now that the Brussels I Recast applies. As readers will be aware, the current version of the Regulation has means to protect choice of court agreements against unwilling partners (see however below).

Claimant, Barclays Bank PLC, is an English bank. The defendant, Ente Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza dei Medici e Degli Odontoiatri (“ENPAM”) is an Italian pension fund. A dispute has arisen between them as to a transaction entered into by way of a Conditional Asset Exchange Letter from ENPAM to Barclays dated 21 September 2007 by which ENPAM exchanged fund assets for securities which were in the form of credit-linked notes called the “Ferras CDO securities”. ENPAM’s claim is that it incurred a major loss in the transaction, and that it is entitled in law to look to Barclays to make that loss good.

On 18 May 2015, Barclays issued a summary judgment application on the basis that there is no defence to its claim that the Milan proceedings fall within contractual provisions giving exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. ENPAM began proceedings against Barclays and others in Milan on 23 June 2014. Barclays says that this was in breach of provisions in the contractual documentation giving exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. It issued the proceedings reviewed here seeking a declaration to that effect and other relief on 15 September 2014. On 20 April 2015, ENPAM applied pursuant to Article 27 or Article 28 of the Brussels I Regulation for an order that the English court should not exercise its jurisdiction in these proceedings on the basis that Milan court was first seised.

The High Court refused. Reference is best made to the judgment itself, for it is very well drafted. Read together with e.g. the aforementioned Alexandros and Nomura judgments, it gives one a complete view of the approach of the English courts viz lis pendens under the Regulation. (E.g. Blair J has excellent overview of the principles of Article 27 (Article 29 in the Recast) under para 68).

Discussion of what exactly Barclays could recover from the English cq Italian proceedings, was an important consideration of whether these two proceedings were each other’s mirror image. (see e.g. para 82 ff). This is quite an important consideration for litigators. Statements of claims are an important input in the lis pendens analysis. Be careful therefore what you ask for. Restraint in the statement of claims might well serve you very well when opposed with recalcitrant opposing parties, wishing to torpedo your proceedings. (Let’s face it: the likelihood of such opposition is quite high in a litigious context).

Finally, it is often assumed that precedent value of the case discussed here and other cases with it, has diminished drastically following the Brussels I Recast. It instructs all courts not named in a choice of court agreement, to step back from jurisdiction in favour of the court named (Article 31(2)). Yet what is and what is not caught by a choice of court agreement (starting with the issue of non-contractual liability between the parties) depends very much on its wording and interpretation. Article 31(2) is not the be all and end all of litigation between contracting parties.

Geert.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Nomura v Banco Monte dei Paschi di Siena . Exclusive court of choice clause counts against use of court’s room under ‘related actions’

In a case on this point reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in the Alexandros, the High Court held in Nomura v Banco Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) [2013] EWHC 3187 (Comm) against a grant of a stay of the English proceedings in favour of proceedings in Italy. The stay would have been granted on the basis of Article 28’s proviso for ‘related’ actions, in particular Article 28(1): ‘where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings.’

A ‘mandate’ agreement exists between parties, which includes a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. The ISDA Master agreement (this is different from the mandate agreement) is subject to English law and as such (see para 16 of the judgment) contains an exclusive choice of court clause. BMPS fired the first shot in litigation, in Italy. The Italian claims are a mixture of contractual liability, liability in tort, and liability ensuing from a criminal offence. BMPS essentially claim that its former senior management colluded with Nomura in covering op losses incurred on financial operations with Nomura. Nomura started proceedings in England with a view to establishing that the agreements at issue are valid and binding. Parties agree that the Italian court was first seized.

As further explained inter alia in my posting on the Alexandros, Article 28 gives the court much more leeway than Article 27’s lis alibi pendens rules. The High Court made full use of this flexibility, inter alia in finding that in reviewing whether actions are ‘related’ within the meaning of Article 28, account must be taken not just of the claims of plaintiff but also the defence raised by defendant. This is in contrast with the ECJ’s position on Article 27 in C-111/01 Gantner Electronic: in deciding identity of action under Article 27, account should be taken only of the claims of the respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions raised by a defendant.

Eder J held that the two proceedings were not likely to lead to irreconcilable judgments. Nomura’s claims in England are contractual. BMPS’ claims are based mostly on tort (para 26). It should not be excluded that the findings in one court will influence the other. Proximity or convenience does not plead in favour of Italy. Finally and importantly, the High Court found that ‘the case against the grant of a stay is strongly fortified because of the existence of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the (  ) Master Agreement. (   ) the Court should, so far as possible, give effect to the parties’ bargain and be very slow indeed to exercise a discretion in a manner the effect of which would be to destroy such bargain‘.

The High Court justifiably did not entertain parties’ arguments on the basis of the new Jurisdiction Regulation, which enters into force in January 2015 and includes a new rule, granting better protection to choice of court agreements (priority for the court assigned to have a first go at establishing its jurisdiction).

Geert.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: