Nike case gives tick of approval for IPs

Table of contents

• Original news
• How did the issue arise?
• What guidance did the Court of Justice give on art 13?
• Which party bears the burden of proof?
• Can the challenge be based on general provisions of law (not just insolvency provisions)?
• What guidance is given about the rules on what evidence is admissible, the principles to assess evidence and the ways evidence can be provided?
• What does this mean in practice for IPs involved in cross-border claw back litigation?

Article summary

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In its interpretation of article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation, Stefan Ramel, a barrister at Guildhall Chambers, explains why the recent Nike decision is a positive and welcome judgment from the Court of Justice.