Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm) (07 August 2015)

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm) (07 August 2015)

The claim is a civil and commercial matter within the Judgments Regulation as it is a debt claim under a contract, not an administrative challenge. The August decision of the Bank of Portugal transferred the liability to Novo Banco, making it party to the jurisdiction clause. The December decision is not a 'transfer' under Article 66 EBRRD or the UK implementing regulations and is not effective in English law to prevent the transfer. The English court has jurisdiction and should not decline or stay proceedings.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent (2015 215): Goldman Sachs International; Defendant/applicant (2015 213, 2015 215): Novo Banco S.A.; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation as Manager and Administrator of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): Andorra Gestió Agricol Reig, S.A.U.S.G.O.I.C.; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): APWIA Fund SPC Ltd; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): Olifant Fund, Ltd; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): FYI Ltd; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): FFI Fund Ltd; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): Elliott International, LP; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): The Liverpool Limited Partnership; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): Karrick Limited; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): GL Europe Luxembourg S.A.R.L.; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): Silver Point Luxembourg Platform S.à r.l.; Claimant/respondent (2015 213): TDC Pensionskasse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (applications to Set Aside/stay) / Interlocutory Application (jurisdiction and Stay)
Outcome
Applications to set aside or stay dismissed; English court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Recognition of Foreign Insolvency Measures, Statutory Transfer of Liabilities, Interpretation of EU Directives, Effect of Administrative Acts, Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldman Sachs International

Claimant/respondent (2015 215)

Novo Banco S.A.

Defendant/applicant (2015 213, 2015 215)

Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation as Manager and Administrator of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

Andorra Gestió Agricol Reig, S.A.U.S.G.O.I.C.

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

APWIA Fund SPC Ltd

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

Olifant Fund, Ltd

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

FYI Ltd

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

FFI Fund Ltd

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

Elliott International, LP

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

The Liverpool Limited Partnership

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

Karrick Limited

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

GL Europe Luxembourg S.A.R.L.

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

Silver Point Luxembourg Platform S.à r.l.

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

TDC Pensionskasse

Claimant/respondent (2015 213)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (applications to Set Aside/stay) / Interlocutory Application (jurisdiction and Stay)

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under the Judgments Regulation (EU 1215/2012)
  2. 2 Whether the claim falls within 'civil and commercial matters' or is excluded as 'administrative matters'
  3. 3 Whether Novo Banco is bound by the contractual jurisdiction clause as statutory successor

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is a civil and commercial matter within the Judgments Regulation as it is a debt claim under a contract, not an administrative challenge. The August decision of the Bank of Portugal transferred the liability to Novo Banco, making it party to the jurisdiction clause. The December decision is not a 'transfer' under Article 66 EBRRD or the UK implementing regulations and is not effective in English law to prevent the transfer. The English court has jurisdiction and should not decline or stay proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside or stay dismissed; English court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue in the English Commercial Court.
  • No stay granted on grounds of comity, non-justiciability, or case management.