Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on the jurisdiction in respect of an action brought in France by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed by a court in the UK seeking a declaration in relation to property within France. The ECJ ruled that the action derived directly from the main insolvency proceedings and was ‘closely connected’ to those proceedings on the basis that the action arose by virtue of UK bankruptcy law and was brought as part of the trustee’s general duties. Therefore, the UK had exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the trustee’s action. Although the UK courts had authorised the trustee to bring an action in France, this did not amount to conferring international jurisdiction on the French courts. Written by Alan Bennett, partner and head of Restructuring and Insolvency at Ashfords LLP.
Tiger and Others (Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Insolvency proceedings—Judgment)  EUECJ C-493/18 (04 December 2019)
The ECJ’s reasoning regarding whether the action fell within Art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (Insolvency Regulation) (the Insolvency Regulation) focused on the fact that the action being brought was based on UK insolvency law, notwithstanding that the property was situated in another Member State. Any similar actions brought by an office-holder under the Insolvency Act 1986—or under similar laws in other Member States—are therefore likely to be considered to fall within Art 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation. The effect would be to make the actions subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened, regardless of the location of the property.
It is also possible to apply the principles in the decision by analogy to the equivalent provisions in (Recast) Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings.
In August 2008, a German company, Wirecard, obtained a freezing order from the UK court over the assets of a Netherlands national, UB. At the time, UB owned an apartment and property complex in France. Later that month, UB and his sister, VA, signed an acknowledgmen
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234