English High Court Enforces Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clause in a Syndicated Loan Facility Agreement

On 24 May 2024, the English High Court granted final injunctive relief to Barclays Bank Plc (Barclays), both in the form of an anti-suit injunction and an anti-enforcement injunction, arising out of a syndicated loan agreement (the Facility) entered into between Barclays and PJSC Sovcombank (Sovcombank).1 In a judgment that will be of interest to financial institutions and investors involved in cross-border disputes and to the public loan market, the English Courts have demonstrated a willingness to enforce asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, which are commonly seen in the syndicated loans market.

Read the full article


Continue Reading



Compensation Under GDPR Only For Damage Actually Incurred

On January 25, 2024 (Case C-687/21), the European Court of Justice ruled in a continuation of its previous data protection case law that a claim for damages based on Art. 82 GDPR does not have a punitive function, but merely a compensatory function. The ECJ thus concludes that a claim for damages always requires the claimant to have suffered concrete damage. A purely hypothetical risk of misuse of data is not sufficient.


Continue Reading




Corporate Liability is Extended to New Predicate Crimes Under Italian Law

As it is widely known, Italian Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 (Decree 231) governs the liability of legal entities (including Italian subsidiaries of foreign companies) in case certain offenses (the Predicate Crimes) are committed in the interest or to the benefit of the entity by its directors, managers, representatives, or employees under their surveillance.

The legal entity might avoid liability under Decree 231 if, inter alia, (i) it has adopted, effectively implemented, and kept up to date an internal organisational, management and control model (the Model 231), and (ii) it has appointed a Supervisory Board (Organismo di Vigilanza) to monitor and ensure company’s compliance with the Model 231.

The adoption and implementation of a Model 231 is not mandatory under Italian law. However, failure to do so could expose a company to potential risk of liability if a Predicate Crime is committed in its interest or to its benefit, insofar the entity would not have the chance to demonstrate that a compliance system was set in order to prevent offenses of the type occurred (i.e., there was not an organizational fault).

The Italian legislator frequently modifies the list of Predicate Crimes (and/or the definitions of specific Predicate Crimes) for which a


Continue Reading



The Italian Supreme Court Paves the Way to Further Expansion of Litigation Funding in Italy

Litigation Funding is fast-growing in Italy. According to one of the most experienced Litigation funders operating across several jurisdictions including Italy, [1] the investment potential is equal to  ~EUR 185 million and it is estimated to reach 325 million in 2027. Currently, the most relevant cases in Italy involve antitrust litigation, international arbitration, commercial litigation, and intellectual property disputes. In the future, those related to climate change and sustainability are also expected to increase significantly.

Due to the development of the practice, Italian Courts have started to issue the first decisions concerning the formal requirements that litigation funders are requested to meet under Italian law to enter a credit assignment transaction with the litigant. In this regard, the Italian Supreme Court took its view in the context of disputes arising from claims brought by the passenger against an operating air carrier under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) no 261/2004.

The Cases

By decisions no 4427 on 20 February 2024 [2], no 7375 on 19 March 2024 [3], no 7635 on 21 March 2024 [4]], and,more recently, no 13749 on 17 May 2024 [5], the Italian Supreme Court ruled on cases


Continue Reading



Court of Appeal Interprets Released Claims in a Settlement Agreement

In the case of Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid and Ors v Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi and Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 612,[1] the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment highlighting the importance of carefully drafting settlement agreements and, in particular, which claims are released.

Background

2017 Proceedings

In 2017, Mr Bin Obaid, a Saudi Arabian national and businessman, brought proceedings in the English High Court against Dr Al-Hezaimi (the 2017 Proceedings). His case was that he had orally agreed with Dr Al-Hezaimi to invest in the English property market using an offshore corporate vehicle of which Mr Bin Obaid would be the majority shareholder. Under the alleged oral agreement, Mr Bid Obaid would provide the funds and Dr Al-Hezaimi would manage the investments. Mr Bin Obaid listed 24 payments in his Particulars of Claim, which he (or an associated company) made to Dr Al-Hezaimi or a property developer.

On the basis of these allegations, Mr Bin Obaid and his companies started the 2017 Proceedings by bringing a without notice application against Dr Al-Hezaimi and his companies for both a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing order, which was duly granted by Barling J (the Barling J Order).

Dr Al-Hezaimi’s


Continue Reading



STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

2024 The Legal 500 EMEA - Leading firm