To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The uneasy rumblings in the media recently on whether the UK would be welcomed back by the European Union (
EU) into the Lugano Convention family were confirmed on 4 May 2021, when the European Commission issued its Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council [1] with its assessment on the application of the UK to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention on the jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments (
Lugano Convention). It recommended that the EU
should not give its consent to UK accession. This communication has been met with disappointment by the legal profession[2] and characterised by the media as a political decision, rather than one based on common sense. However, there is room for hope this is not quite the last chapter in the saga of the EU/UK relationship in the area of choice of court agreements, jurisdiction and judgments.
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Re gategroup Guarantee Limited [2021] EWHC 304 (Ch) (
Re gategroup Guarantee Limited) and provides a view of its effects on the cross-border application of the Restructuring Plan (defined below) and the use of co-obligor structures in restructurings.
IN DEPTH
The Restructuring Plan
The UK restructuring plan was introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 as a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the
Restructuring Plan) and is substantially modelled on the existing UK scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the
Scheme). Restructuring Plans primarily differ from Schemes in the following respects:
A company may use Restructuring Plans where: (i) it has encountered, or is likely to encounter, financial difficulties that are affecting, or will or may affect, its ability to carry on business; and (ii) a compromise or arrangement is proposed between the company and its creditors and/or members (or an
In summary
Rights holders have traditionally turned to court litigation to protect IP rights such as patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets – or to enforce IP licensing agreements. This brings certain challenges, such as a public forum, unfamiliar laws and procedures, judges with varying IP law expertise, concern for national interests, and the risk that a judgment cannot be enforced in other jurisdictions. Arbitration offers an alternative mechanism and has a number of advantages, including confidentiality, a neutral forum or a single forum, the ability to select arbitrators with technical expertise, symmetrical risk for licensors, and cross-border enforceability of arbitral awards. This chapter considers the viability and desirability of arbitration as a means of resolving cross-border IP and IP-related disputes with a focus on Asia.