- Art 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereinafter “Brussels I”) [2001] OJ L12 as amended by Corrigendum [2001] OJ L307.
- 2 Provided that at least one of the parties is domiciled in a Member State. See: Brussels I, Art 23.
- R Wright, “Corporate Insolvency: An Analysis of English and Canadian Corporate Salvage Reform Proposals” (1985) 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 25; A Hargovan, “The Source of Efficacy for Creditors' Schemes of Arrangements in England, Australia and Singapore” (2010) 31 Company Lawyer 199; K Clowry, “Debt-to-Equity Conversion in the UK and Europe” (2010) 7 European Company Law 51, 53.
- S 899 (1) Companies Act 2006.
- S 899 (2) Companies Act 2006.
- S 899 (3) Companies Act 2006.
- Clowry, supra n 3, 54.
- In the matter of Rodenstock GmbH [2011] EWHC 1104 (Ch), para 20 and the case-law cited therein.
- P Stone, EU Private International Law (Edward Elgar, 2010), 151.
- Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings [2000] OJ L160/1.
- Art 1(1). See: J Israël, European Cross-Border Insolvency Regulation (Intersentia, 2005), 254; K Pannen (ed), European Insolvency Regulation (De Gruyter, 2007), 24.
- Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968 by P Jenard [1979] OJ C59/1, 22.
- In the matter of Rodenstock GmbH [2011] EWHC 1104 (Ch).
- T Rauscher, Europäisches Zivilprozeßrecht (Sellier, 2004), 69; S Bariatti, “Le Azioni Collettive dell'art 140-bis del Codice del Consumo: Aspetti di Diritto Internazionale Private e Processu-ale” (2011) 49 Rivisto di Diritto Internazionale e Processuale 19, 24. Bariatti argues that with regard to the new Italian procedure for collective redress, international jurisdiction over parties domiciled in another Member State should be established in accordance with Brussels I and that there is now no margin left for Italian legislation.
- Opinion 1/03 Lugano Convention [2006] ECR I-1145. M Fallon, “L'applicabilité du règlement ‘Bruxelles I’ aux situations externes après l'avis 1/03” in T Azzi et al (eds), Ve r s de nouveaux équili-bres entre ordres juridiques, Liber amicorum Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (Dalloz, 2008), 241; P Kuijper, “The Opinion on the Lugano Convention and Implied External Relations Powers” in B Martenczuk and S van Thiel (eds), Justice, Liberty and Security: New Challenges for EU External Relations (Brussels University Press, 2008), 187.
- Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007, OJ C306.
- Art 2(2) TFEU.
- Rodenstock, supra n 8, para 60.
- U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), The Brussels I Regulation (Sellier, 2007), 236; Stone, supra n 9, 116.
- T Arons and W van Boom, “Beyond Tulips and Cheese: Exporting Mass Securities Claim Settlements from the Netherlands” (2010) 21 European Business Law Review 857; M van der Heijden, “Class Actions” (2010) 14 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law; J Kuipers, “La loi sur le règle-ment collectif de dommages de masse aux Pays-Bas et ses ambitions dans l'espace judicaire européen” (2012) 64 Revue International de Droit Comparé 213.
- Art 1013 (3) Code of Civil Procedure.
- 22 Art 7:907 (3) Civil Code.
- 23 Art 7:908 Civil Code.
- Art 1018 (1) Code of Civil Procedure.
- The private international law aspects of the WCAM are discussed in detail by: H van Lith, “The Dutch Collective Settlements Act”, 2010, electronically accessible at: http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/internationaal-privaatrechtelijke-aspecten-van-de-wet-collectieve-afhan-deling-massaschade-wcam.aspx?cp=45&cs=6796 (accessed 6 September 2011).
- Amsterdam Court of Appeals, 25 January 2007, LJN: AZ7033 (Dexia). See: I Tzankova and C van Doorn, “Effectiviteit en efficiëntie van massaschade: terug naar de kern van het collec-tieve actierecht” in F't Hart (ed), Collectieve acties in de financiële sector (NIBE-SVV, 2009), 95.
- Amsterdam Court of Appeals, 29 May 2009, LJN: BI5744 (Shell).
- In re Royal Dutch Shell Transport Securities Litigation, 522 F Supp 2d 712 (2007), 721.
- See as well: Morrison v National Australia Bank 130 SCt 2869 (2010) (No 08–1191), 2010 WL 719337. R Wasserman, “Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion” (2011) 86 Notre Dame Law Review 313, with further references. The actions are called f-cubed because there is a triple foreign element: the shares of a foreign company, bought by a non-US citizen on a foreign stock exchange.
- 30 Art 3(a) Code of Civil Procedure. “With exception of the matters referred to in articles 4 and 5, the courts of the Netherlands have jurisdiction in matters that are instituted by the filing of an application if: a. either the applicant, or in the event of more than one applicant, one of the applicants, or one of the interested parties mentioned in the application is domiciled or habitually resident in the Netherlands.”
- 31 Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ L147/5.
- 32 Since the relevant provisions of Brussels I and the Lugano Convention do not differ, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, further references to the Lugano Convention have been omitted. It can be assumed that whatever is said about the position of parties domiciled in another Member State equally applies to parties domiciled in an EFTA Member State.
- Shell, supra n 27, para 5.17.
- That interpretation was already proposed by: M Polak “Iedereen en overal?: Internationaal privaatrecht rond ‘massaclaims’” (2006) 81 Nederlands Juristenblad 2346; M Poot, “Internationale Afwikkeling van Massaschade met de Wet Collectieve Afwikkeling Massaschade” in M Holtzer, A Leijten and D Oranje (eds), Geschriften vanwege de Vereniging Corporate Litigation 2005–2006 (Kluwer, 2006), 169, 175 but more reluctant: Van Lith, supra n 25, 38.
- Shell, supra n 27, para 5.26. The Court of Appeals attached great importance to the fact that the companies presented a single consolidated annual Report and Financial Statements.
- Amsterdam Court of Appeals, 12 September 2010, LJN:BO3908 (Converium).
- In re Scor Holding, 2008 US Dist. LEXIS 1025 04.
- Case C-167/00 Henkel [2002] ECR I-8111.
- On that provision: Magnus and Mankowski, supra n 19, 80; E Lein, “La Compétence en Mat-ière Contractuelle: un Regard Critique sur l'Article 5(1) de la Nouvelle Convention de Lugano” in A Bonomi et al (eds), La Convention de Lugano: Passé, Présent et Devenir (Schulthess, 2007), 41; J Kuipers, “De Plaats waar een Dienstenovereenkomst dient te worden Verricht als Grond voor Rechterlijke Bevoegdheid” (2010) 28 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 622.
- C-26/91 Handte [1992] ECR I-3967, para 15.
- Moreover, if the Court of Appeals would have followed its own reasoning, it would have had to decline jurisdiction. First of all, because the bar on bringing legal proceedings against the Swiss companies has no territorial limitations, this contractual obligation cannot serve as a basis of jurisdiction under Art 5(1) (see: Case C-256/00 Besix [2002] ECR I-1699). The obligation to pay monetary compensation has, according to the applicable law, by default to be performed at the place of residence of the creditor (Art 6:616(a) Civil Code). Even if the settlement agreement could be interpreted in such a way that the seat of the ad hoc organisation charged with the actual payment of the compensation to the injured parties should be considered as the place where the contract has to be performed, that place would be The Hague and not Amsterdam. Since Art 5 designates directly the competent court in a Member State without any further resort to national procedural rules, the Amsterdam Court of Appeals should have declined jurisdiction in favour of the court in The Hague.
- It is, for example, quoted by Van Lith supra n 25, 37–38; Z Tang, “Consumer Collective Redress in European Private International Law” (2011) 7 Journal of Private International Law 101, 123.
- A Briggs, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Informa, 2009), 201.
- Sceptical: J Stuyck, “Class Actions in Europe? To Opt-in or to Opt-out, That Is the Question” (2009) 20 European Business Law Review 483, 502; Tang, supra n 42, 124.
- Rauscher, supra n 14, 143. Rauscher provides some examples of the required connection such as the existence of a common obligation. The common obligation should, however, be one of joint or partial liability instead of two identical obligations coexisting.
- H Roth, “Das Konnexitätserfordernis im Mehrparteiengerichtsstand des Artikel 6(1) EuGVO” in J von Hein et al (eds), Die Richtige Ordnung: Festschrift für Jan Kropholler (Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 885; Z Tang, “Multiple Defendants in the European Jurisdiction Regulation” (2009) 34 European Law Review 80; G Biagioni, La Connessione Attributiva di Giurisdizione nel Regolamento CE n 44/2011 (CEDAM, 2011).
- Case 145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645.
- Case C-406/92 Tatry [1994] ECR I-05439.
- Case 189/87 Kalfelis [1988] ECR 5565, para 13.
- Case C-539/03 Roche Nederland [2006] ECR I-6535, para 26.
- Case C-98/06 Freeport v Arnoldsson [2007] ECR I-08319.
- AG Trstenjak in Case C-145/10 Painer [2011] ECR I-0000.
- Case C-145/10 Painer [2011] ECR I-0000, paras 80–82.
- A bit more moderate, but as well sceptical towards the compatibility of the reasoning of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals with the methodology of Brussels I: Van Lith, supra n 25, 39.
- Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC [1993] ECR I-4075, para 11; Case C-281/02 Owusu [2005] ECR I-1383, para 40.
- In Rodenstock, the English High Court could thus have assumed jurisdiction on the ground that the Senior Facilities Agreement underlying the scheme of agreement contained a choice of forum in favour of the courts of England (see Rodenstock, para 5).
- Case 145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1987] ECR 645.
- Case 125/79 Denilauler [1980] ECR 1533, para 13. See also: AG Kokott in Case C-394/07 Gambazzi [2009] ECR I-2536, paras 20–30.
- Case C-39/02 Mærsk Olie & Gas v de Haan & de Boer [2004] ECR I-9657, paras 50–51.
- Case C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren [1994] ECR I-2237, para 17.
- Ibid, para 18.
- Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968 by P Jenard [1979] OJ C59/1, 22.
- See: H Eidenmüller and T Frobenius, “Die Internationale Reichweite eines Englischen Scheme of Arrangement” (2011). Electronically available at: www.jura.uni-muenchen.de/fakultaet/lehrstuehle/eidenmueller/_dokumente/veroeffentlichungen/schemes.pdf (accessed 9 February 2012), with further references.
- Oberlandesgericht Celle, 8 September 2009, 8 U 46/09. An appeal against the decision is still pending before the Bundesgerichtshof (Az IV ZR 194/09).
- Ibid, para dd(a).
- Critical about this decision: M Laier, “Die stille Sanierung Deutscher Gesellschaften mittels eines ‘Scheme of Arrangement’” [2011] Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht 252.
- In favour of recognition abroad of Dutch judgments relating to collective redress: A Croiset van Uchelen, “Van Corporate Litigation naar Corporate Settlement” in G van Solinge and M Holtzer (eds), Geschriften vanwege de Vereniging Corporate Litigation 2003–2004 (Kluwer, 2004), 129, 145; Van Lith, supra n 25, 87.
- Magnus and Mankowski, supra n 19, 695.
- Van Lith, supra n 25, 91.
- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2010) 748 final.
- 71 See Art 70 of the Proposal. In the final version of the recast Brussels I “in the course of proceedings” will probably be deleted and court approved settlements will be enforced in other Member States in the same way as authentic instruments. They would therefore not benefit from recognition under the Regulation.
- An overview of these rules is provided by: C Crifò, Cross-Border Enforcement of Debts in the European Union (Kluwer Law International, 2009).
- In more detail: G Cuniberti, “La reconnaissance en France des jugements par défaut anglais (à propos de l'affaire Gambazzi-Stolzenberg)” (2009) 98 Revue critique de droit international privé 685; J Kuipers, “The Free Movement of Judgments and the Right to a Fair Trial” in Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy (Zagreb, 2010) 6, 23.
- Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935, para 37.
- Case C-394/07 Gambazzi [2009] ECR I-2563.
- OLG Celle, supra n 64, para (dd)(c).
- Rodenstock, supra n 8.
- 78 For the sake of completeness it should be observed that the OLG did not refuse to consider the English decision a judgment for the purposes of Brussels I, it also did not see any possibility under national law to recognise the English decision.
- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2010) 748 final.
- Ibid, 7. It seems likely that the final version of the recast of Brussels I will remove the exequatur in relation to all types of judgments but retain the existing grounds for non-recognition and enforcement including public policy.
- Cour de cassation, 25 July 1989, no 89–257 (Alstom). See: F Caballero, “Plaidons par Procureur—De l'Archaïsme Procédural à l'Action de Groupe” (1985) 84 RTD Civ 247; H Muir Watt, “Brussels I and Aggregate Litigation or the Case for Redesigning the Common Judicial Area in Order to Respond to Changing Dynamics, Functions and Structures in Contemporary Adjudication and Litigation” (2010) 30 IPRax 111, 115. On the other hand it has been argued that the introduction in France of collective redress would not raise any constitutional problems as long as individuals are able to opt-out of the proceedings in order to safeguard the individual liberty. See: M Verpeaux, “L'action de Groupe est-elle Soluble dans la Constitution?” [2007] Recueil Dalloz 258.
- 82 Meaning that no person can act on behalf of someone else.
Journal of Private International Law
Volume 8, 2012 - Issue 2