Conflict of Laws .net

The choice of who gets to stay, and who has to go, has been made at the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance; on 6 October 2006, the mandate of thirteen judges and four Advocates General will expire.

The Representatives of the Member States whose mandates have been renewed until 6 October 2012 are:

• Mr Peter Jann,
• Mr Christiaan Timmermans,
• Sir Konrad Schiemann,
• Mr Jiri Malenovsky,
• Mr Antonio Tizzano,
• Mr José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues,
• Mr Pranas Kuris,
• Mr George Arestis,
• Mr Anthony Borg Barthet and
• Mr Egils Levits
• Mr Paolo Mengozzi (as Advocate General)

Four new Representatives were appointed to the ECJ:

• Ms Pernilla Lindh, from the Court of First Instance (replacing Mr Stig von Bahr),
• Mr Jean-Claude Bonichot (replacing Mr Jean-Pierre Puissochet),
• Mr Thomas von Danwitz (replacing Ms Ninon Colneric),
• Mr Yves Bot, appointed Advocate General (replacing Mr Philippe Léger.)

In addition, and applying the system of rotation of Advocates General by alphabetical order of the Member States, Mr Ján Mazàk was appointed in place of Mr Leendert A. Geelhoed and Ms Verica Trstenjak was appointed in place of Ms Christine Stix-Hackl.

At the Court of First Instance, Mr Nils Wahl and Mr Miro Prek were appointed as Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, replacing Ms Pernilla Lindh and Ms Verica Trstenjak, respectively.

The successors will be sworn into office on Friday 6 October 2006 at 17:00 in the main court room. After the formal sitting, the Judges of the Court of Justice will elect in camera, from among their number, their President for a term of three years.

The full press release can be found here.

Update: Following the formal sitting on 6 October 2006, a press release has been issued by the ECJ with brief biographies of the new judges.

On 9 October 2006, following the partial replacement of the members of the Court of Justice, Mr Vassilios Skouris, who has been President of the institution since 7 October 2003, was re-elected to perform the duties of President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the period from 9 October 2006 to 6 October 2009. A short biography of the President can be found here.

The latest decision in the attempt by the government of British Columbia to sue several tobacco companies for damages and health care costs is British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd [2006] BCJ No 2080 (CA) (available here).  The decision provides a good review of the enacting of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act by the government and the litigation thereunder.  The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects several jurisdictional challenges by the defendants and also rejects a motion for a stay based on forum non conveniens.  

In Re Presbytarian Church of Sudan, released September 26, 2006 (available here) the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that a letter of request from the United States District Court could not be enforced in Ontario.  Residents and former residents of Sudan sued Talisman Energy Inc, a Canadian company, in the United States for acts of genocide, torture and other human rights violations, relying on the Alien Tort Claims Act for jurisdiction.  Despite the government of Canada having formally expressed its concerns about the litigation proceeding in the United States, through a diplomatic note, the court held that the letter of request was not contrary to the public policy of Canada.  However, the court refused the request on the basis that the evidence in support - an affidavit from New York counsel - was insufficient to establish that the evidence sought was relevant, necessary and not otherwise obtainable.  The court described the affidavit as containing only "bald assertions" on these important elements of the test for giving effect to a foreign letter of request.

After their general agreement on the text of the draft Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ("Rome II") on 1-2 June 2006, the Council of the European Union has adopted a common position on 25 September 2006 under the co-decision procedure (by a qualified majority).

The Council's common position responds both to the Commission's original proposal in 2003, as modified by their proposal on 22 February 2006, and the amendments suggested by the European Parliament on 6 July 2005.

The draft statement of the Council's reasons can be found here. The complete text of the draft Regulation proposed by the Council in their common position can be downloaded from here.

All comments on the various acceptances and rejections contained therein are welcome.

Ariel L. Bendor (University of Haifa - Faculty of Law) and Ayelet Ben-Ezer (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliyah - Radzyner School of Law) have posted an article on SSRN entitled, "Conceptualizing Yahoo! v. L.C.R.A.: Private Law, Constitutional Review and International Conflict of Laws". The abstract reads as follows:

The Article deals with a topic that, despite its increasing importance, largely has been ignored in American case law and legal literature: the power of a court to review the constitutionality of foreign legal rules. The question arises in two contexts. The Court may be asked to review the constitutionality of enforcing the foreign law or judgment under the forum country's constitution, or it may be asked to do so under the foreign country's constitution. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently addressed these issues in Yahoo v. L.C.R.A. (169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (2001)), which illustrates many of the difficulties courts encounter when faced with both constitutional issues and questions of international conflicts of law. The Article argues that despite numerous conceptual and pragmatic difficulties there is a strong policy justification for forum courts' constitutional review, and possible nullification, of foreign laws and judgments, at least in certain circumstances. This is since constitutional review, when carefully and appropriately limited, is an integral part of private international law that should allow for the disqualification of foreign laws and judgments only when the basic interests or other meta-principles of the forum dictate such a result. The Article, against the background of Yahoo v. L.C.R.A, attempts to conceptualize and provide a theoretical framework for the discussion and solution of problems relating to the conflux of constitutional review and international conflict of laws. The Article suggests that the central goals of private international law can still be accomplished within the framework of constitutional review. This can be achieved by fundamentally restricting the scope of constitutional review, especially when it involves “aggressive” measures such as the invalidation of foreign laws because of incompatibility with the foreign constitution. The thrust of this proposal is that forum courts should almost never apply foreign constitutional provisions that threaten to invalidate or otherwise nullify foreign laws, because they are not the appropriate place for such review, which is best left to the domestic courts of the relevant country. This principle is not absolute, however, and the Article suggests a few exceptions.

The full article can be downloaded from here.

It looks like Ralf Michaels (Duke University) has been busy recently! As well as his “EU Law as Private International Law” article, Ralf Michaels has also posted “Some Fundamental Jurisdictional Conceptions as Applied in Judgment Conventions” on SSRN. The abstract states:

The law of jurisdiction and of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is confused. So is the debate about it. Basic concepts, even that of jurisdiction, have ambiguous meaning. Misunderstandings, most prominent in the failure to conclude a worldwide judgments convention at the Hague, are the consequence. This article tries to bring conceptual clarity to the field through an analysis of concepts and relations. The article first shows that jurisdiction as a requirement for the rendering of a decision (direct jurisdiction) and jurisdiction as a requirement for the decision’s enforceability elsewhere (indirect jurisdiction), are logically independent from each other. It goes on to show that the three possible values of deontic logic - obligatory, optional, and impermissible conduct - are reflected in three possible statuses that jurisdictional bases can have: such bases may be required, excluded, or permitted. A combination of both distinctions leads to nine different possible combinations of direct and indirect jurisdiction. The article analyzes each of these nine in detail.
Such an analysis is crucial for the drafting of judgment conventions. Traditionally, a distinction existed between so-called single conventions that regulate only enforcement of foreign judgments, and double conventions that regulate also direct jurisdiction. Arthur von Mehren, for whose memorial volume this article is written, developed a third category, the so-called mixed convention. Although it represented a considerable improvement, the exact structure of mixed convention never became fully clear. This article proposes a new typology that is both richer and more exact.
Although the article draws on rich comparative material from existing conventions, and although it emphasizes repeatedly the normative implications both of different values for jurisdictional bases and of different types of conventions, the article’s prime aim is analytical, not normative. However, far from being a mere formalist exercise, such an analysis lays the indispensable prerequisites for a proper normative analysis. The definition of clear concepts does not guarantee proper policy debates, but without clear concepts policy debate is impossible. In this sense, the paper hopes to help provide new foundations for such debates.

The article can be downloaded in full from here.

Ralf Michaels (Duke University) has an interesting article forthcoming in the Journal of Private International Law, "EU Law as Private International Law? Re-Conceptualising the Country-of-Origin Principle as Vested Rights Theory". Here's the abstract:

One of the most pertinent issues in contemporary European conflict of laws is the tension between Community law and traditional choice of law rules. The biggest problem comes not from the transposition of member state rules on choice of law into methodologically comparable EC Regulations, but rather from the so-called country-of-origin principle. This principle holds, broadly, that EU member states may not impose obligations on a provider of goods and services that go beyond the obligations imposed by the provider's home state. Originally conceived mainly with public law obligations in mind, the principle has an impact on choice of law insofar as it bars member states from applying their own law to the provider's conduct, even if they have the closest connections to this conduct.

The exact relationship between the so called country of origin principle, and private international law, has long puzzled scholars and courts. Yet attempts at explanation and reconciliation have so far been unsuccessful because they started from an inappropriately narrow understanding of private international law. Integrating comparative legal history, this paper proposes a broader understanding of private international law beyond the current post-Savignyan approach. Thus broader approach makes it possible to recognize how the country of origin principle is remarkably similar to an almost forgotten and universally rejected private international law approach - the vested rights theory. The article demonstrates the parallels between the country of origin principle and US, English, French and German historical versions theories of vested rights.

This insight presents an interesting challenge. The vested rights theory is now universally rejected because the criticism brought forward against it was and is felt to be irrefutable. One might think the same criticism would be able to bring the country of origin principle down, too. Indeed, the article shows how current criticism of the country of origin principle replicates to a large degree earlier criticism made against the vested rights theory. Remarkably, however, it shows also that the country of origin principle can refute the criticism.

The return of vested rights, and its regained ability to overcome seemingly irrefutable criticism, hold a broader lesson. The rise and fall (and rebirth) of private international law approaches depends less on abstract considerations and more on general ideas and ideologies of the times - in this case, economic liberalism.

Highly recommended.

The latest issue of the German legal journal "Rabels Zeitschrift" (Vol. 70 No.3, July 2006) attends to European and International Insolvency Law. These are the articles which focus on this topic:

• Axel Flessner (Berlin/Frankfurt (Main)), Europäisches und internationales Insolvenzrecht, Eine Einführung (European and international insolvency law - an introduction)
• Christoph G. Paulus (Berlin), Die ersten Jahre mit der Europäischen Insolvenzverordnung (The first years with the European Insolvency Regulation)
• Horst Eidenmüller (Munich), Gesellschaftsstatut und Insolvenzstatut (The law governing the company and the law governing the insolvency)
• Daniel Girsberger (Lucerne), Die Stellung der gesicherten Gläubiger in der internationalen Insolvenz (The position of secured creditors in the international insolvency)
• Cecilia Carrara (Rome), The Parmalat case
• Alexander Trunk (Kiel), Entwicklungslinien des Insolvenzrechts in den Transformationsländern (The development of insolvency law in transition countries)

In Crown Resources Corp SA v National Iranian Oil Corp [2006] OJ No 3345 (CA), decided August 22, 2006, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a lower court decision which had not given effect to a jurisdiction clause in favour of litigation in Iran.  The Court of Appeal confirmed that a "strong cause" had to be shown before the court could disregard such a clause, and that no such cause had been made out in this case.   Throughout its reasons, the court stresses the importance of upholding jurisdiction agreements.  The case also illustrates how related tort claims can be found to fall within the scope of the agreement.  The decision is available here.

Rolf Wagner (Berlin) gives an overview on new developments concerning the law applicable regarding maintenance obligations in the German legal journal FamRZ 2006, 979 et. seq. He addresses two new measures which deal with this field of law: On the one hand the plans of the Hague Conference to draft a new Convention on Maintenance Obligations which is planned to replace the two Hague Conventions from 1958 and 1973, and on the other hand the Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, COM(2005) 649 final. Wagner compares the conflict of law rules of both drafts and attends to the relationship between these two instruments.

Robin Jeffcott and Dan Peyton (Richards Butler) have published the second instalment of their summary on "Overseas Workers: Employment without Borders" in the Employment Law Journal. Here's the abstract:

This, the second of a two part article, examines the legal issues which can arise where employees work in other jurisdictions as well as in the UK, considering the use of choice of law provisions in employment contracts, the jurisdiction of UK courts to hear breach of contract claims, jurisdiction governing employers' proceedings against overseas employees, and the protection of employers' business interests through the use of restrictive covenants and garden leave.

Emp. L.J. (2006) No.73 September Pages 17-19 (available on Lawtel).

Omaia Elwan, Bruno Menhofer and Dirk Otto published a collection of expert opinions which have been given by Prof. Dr. Elwan (Institute for private international law, University of Heidelberg) between 1982 and 2002 on the family law and the law of succession of the Middle East, Africa and Asia: "Gutachten zum ausländischen Familien- und Erbrecht".

More information can be found on the publisher´s website.

We are pleased to announce the

Journal of Private International Law Conference 2007

to be held at the University of Birmingham

on

26th -27th June 2007

——————

Call for Papers

The editors, Professor Jonathan Harris (University of Birmingham) and Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Aberdeen), would be delighted to receive applications from scholars to present papers at the conference. There are two presentation categories:

Academic Conference Papers

The greater part of the conference will focus on academic papers in all areas of private international law. An academic paper will be expected to last for approximately 30 minutes at the conference.

To submit an abstract of the proposed paper, contact:

Jonathan Harris
Professor of International Commercial Law
School of Law
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Email: j.m.harris.law@bham.ac.uk

————–

Postgraduate Research Papers

The morning of 26th June will be devoted to papers given by postgraduates on their current research topic. A postgraduate research paper will be expected to last for approximately 15 - 20 minutes at the conference.

To submit an abstract of the proposed paper, contact:

Martin P. George
School of Law
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Email: mpg514@bham.ac.uk

————–

More information on booking and prices to follow. To register your interest in attending the conference, and receive more information via email, please contact:

conflicts-conference@contacts.bham.ac.uk

USEFUL LINKS:

The official website of the 2007 conference.

For more information on the Journal of Private International Law, and to subscribe, visit the Journal website.

Peter Mankowski (Hamburg) takes the occasion of a judgment of the District Court Tübingen (judgment of 30.3.2005 - 5 O 45/03) to reveal weaknesses of the theory of "facts of multiple relevance” (IPRax 2006, 454 et seq.). According to the theory of "facts of multiple relevance” which is rather popular in German - but also Swiss and Swedish - courts, facts which are relevant with regard to jurisdiction as well as the substance of the case do not have to be proved in order to assume jurisdiction. It is sufficient if they are alleged by the claimant - they are examined only in the context of the substance of the case. This theory might be compared with the English approach to allow a lesser burden of proof to assume jurisdiction which is satisfied by a showing of probability ("good arguable case"). Mankowski reveals in his comment inter alia that the theory of "facts of multiple relevance" leads to difficulties if the term in question becomes relevant for the second time only in the context of the applicable law - and not in the context of conflict of law rules. This is problematic since then the question whether it is examined at all if the conditions of the respective term are met, depends on whether the applicable law knows this term. If a law is declared to be applicable which does not know the respective term, it might happen that the term in question is not examined at all: Neither with regard to jurisdiction - due to the theory of "facts of multiple relevance" which shifts the examination to the substance of the case - nor with regard to substantive law.

In the case in question (District Court Tübingen) the "fact of multiple relevance” was, whether the transaction was a door-to-door-selling. This term was relevant with regard to jurisdiction as well as the substance of the case. Since in this case German substantive law - which knows the term “door-to-door-selling” - was applicable, the problem described above did not occur. However, Mankowski points out rightly that this judgment reveals one weakness of the theory of "facts of multiple relevance". This is true because if, in the concrete case, Turkish substantive law - which does not know the term of "door-to-door-selling" - would have been applicable, this term would have been relevant only with regard to jurisdiction, but would not have appeared again with regard to the substance of the case. Therefore the question whether the transaction in question could be classified as a door-to-door-selling would not have been examined at all.

The aim of the Butterworths International Commercial Litigation Handbook is to be a repository of "United Kingdom primary and secondary legislation, with key European Community and international materials" relating to international commercial disputes before the courts in England, Wales and Scotland. Publication details and a table of contents can be found in the earlier news item.

The frenzy of legislative activity, both on a national and European level, in recent years means that Butterworths have had to squeeze a lot of information into a relatively small amount of space. The breadth of material the editorial team has managed to include in the Handbook, however, is to be welcomed; private international lawyers will find their needs almost comprehensively satisfied. The materials are grouped into five Parts: Statutes; Civil Procedure Rules; Statutory Instruments; EC Materials, and Other International Materials. Each Part is again sub-divided into several categories, so that Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments are dealt with separately from Applicable Law, as well as Arbitration, Carriage by Sea, Cross-Border Insolvency, Service of Documents, and so on.

This grouping of legislation can feel somewhat counter-intuitive if one is focusing on a particular area: the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, for example, can be found at para. [182], whilst the 1980 Rome Convention to which the 1990 Act gives effect doesn't appear until para. [3205]. Fortunately, the publishers have preempted this problem by using coloured "tabs" for each Part, which appear both on the pages themselves and, crucially, when the Handbook is shut, thus giving you a good idea where the relevant text is located at any given time.

Another key feature is the inclusion of "Notes" that appear periodically throughout every Act or Instrument. These often simply cite changes to the legislative text, the date on which the relevant legislation came into force, or helpfully cross-reference to another part of the Handbook. More significantly, they also occasionally provide updates on the possible future of particular legislation - the note appended to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, for instance, cites the proposed "Rome I" Regulation, and where on the internet you can find it, along with the UK's current opt-out position. The only limitation to such an excellent service is a by-product of the chapter structure implemented (as noted above): the note appended to the 1980 Rome Convention, at para. [3205] in the EC Materials section, makes no mention of the proposed "Rome I" Regulation. This would perhaps be where one would expect to find it, rather than alongside the 1990 Act in the Statutes section of the Handbook. This is, however, a small point - practitioners and academics familiar with the text of the legislation will find little difficulty in extracting the pertinent information from the Handbook.

The Handbook also includes a number of Tables, in Part V, on Other International Materials. These identify, inter alia, the date on which the various Brussels and Lugano Conventions came into force, as well as the Brussels I Regulation, in each Member State of the EC, and the complete list (and entry into force dates) of those countries party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. The same service is also repeated for the Service Regulation, the 1965 Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial Documents, and the 1970 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad. These tables represent an impressive, and useful, collection of statistics that will appeal to practitioners and academics alike.

Overall, the Handbook is a well put-together, comprehensive sourcebook of key legislation in the field of international commercial litigation. It is an essential text for practitioners who want all the relevant materials contained within one volume, and a useful addition to any university law library.

Butterworths International Commercial Litigation Handbook can be bought from the CONFLICT OF LAWS .NET secure, Amazon-powered bookshop.

Professor Muir-Watt is hosting a conference on the "The Policy of the French Cour de Cassation in Private International Law: Economics of Justice in International Litigation."

During this conference organized by the French Cour de Cassation, Professor Horatia Muir-Watt will discuss the economy of judicial means as a policy factor in the recently decided private international law cases. Traditionally, the analysis of the Cour de Cassation includes this policy factor in the field of asserting and proof of foreign law where it seeks to achieve a balance between the proper application of the private international law rules and the risk of long and complex litigation. Presently, as the conditions for a free choice of forum are much more liberal and the circulation of foreign judgments and arbitral awards is simplified, a true world market of judicial services is starting to emerge. Thus the economy of judicial means as an economic criterion permits to evaluate the competitiveness of the judicial services offered by the French court. Beyond this national aspect, Professor Horatia Muir-Watt will examine the need of global regulation of court access in an international context. [translated]

The conference will be in French, and will take place on Monday, September 18, 2006, 18.00-20.00, at the Grande Chambre of the Cour de Cassation, on place Dauphine, rue de Harlay, Paris ler.

A programme of the conference will be posted on the website (the website is not yet online.)

The draft report on the "Rome I" Regulation (which proposes to convert the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community Regulation) has been produced by rapporteur Maria Berger, as part of the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), in response to the European Commission's original proposal on 15th December 2005.

The report is publicly available from the JURI website. JURI will meet on 11th September 2006 to consider the report, and potentially map out a timetable for amendments.

There are some key changes to the Commission's proposal in JURI's report. The rapporteur summarises them thus:

The amendments contained in this report are designed to improve the text as proposed by the Commission in the light of the various submissions that have been made to the rapporteur and with a view to making it more consistent with the Rome II project as it stands at present. She has concentrated particularly on certain key provisions, such as Article 4 (Applicable law in the absence of choice) and Article 6 (Individual employment contracts), where she advocates an approach closer to that adopted by Parliament in its first reading of Rome II and to the conflict-of-law rules of non-EU jurisdictions. Your rapporteur has also sought to distinguish between internal and international mandatory rules by amending Article 8 on the ground that the various references to “mandatory rules” in Articles 3(5), 6(1), 8 and 10(1) could give rise to confusion.

The amendment to Article 4 reintroduces the "closest connection" rule (which was conspiciously absent from the Commission's proposal), supplemented with a number of presumptions for particular types of contract (thus bringing it more in line with the current Rome Convention, and also more closely mirroring the provisions of the "Rome II" Regulation). Significantly, the draft report also deletes Article 8(3), which gives effect to the mandatory (overriding) rules of another country with which the situation has a close connection. It will be remembered that Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom all entered a reservation for the corresponding provision in the Rome Convention (Article 7(1)). It may be this change, as much as any other, that will entice the UK to opt back in.

As always, comments on the draft report are very welcome.

A compendium on international commercial law ("Handbuch Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht"), edited by Herbert Kronke, Werner Melis and Anton K. Schnyder, has been published. The information on the publisher´s website reads as follows:

The incredible plenitude of different rules on international commercial law can hardly be overviewed by consultants. Therefore consultants need an orientation, which is provided by this new handbook. In consideration of the internationalisation of economy, which includes also medium-sized companies, the number of border-crossing transactions is rising steadily. Transnational commercial and economic law (uniform law), conflict of laws, public international commercial law and the specifics of cross-border cases determine the daily business of in-house counsels as well as legal advisors. This new compendium covers - in a consequently practice oriented manner - the most important situations occurring in business life, respectively from the perspective of international and European law, private international law, national legal systems (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein) and international uniform law. (…)

More information can be found on the publisher´s website.

A new book by Peter G. Mayr and Dietmar Czernich (University of Innsbruck, Austria) on European civil procedure law has been published: "Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht". 

Mayr and Czernich attend in the first part to general questions such as the development of European civil procedure law and give a short overview of the different legal acts. Subsequent to this introduction they discuss the single regulations, namely Brussels I, Brussels II bis, the Service Regulation, the Evidence Regulation as well as the European Enforcement Order and the European payment order procedure.

Jonas Malmberg (Arbetslivsinstitutets, Sweden) has published an article on 'The Legal Position of Employees’ in Cross-Border Transfers of Undertakings in the EU: A Question of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law' in the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations. Here's the abstract:

This article deals with the rules designed to enforce European Union labour law in the workplace. Directives do not normally provide specific rules on procedures and sanctions according to which their substantive provisions are to be enforced. Instead, domestic rules are to be applied. The European Court of Justice, however, has developed some requirements that limit the autonomy of the Member States in this area. The aim of this article is to evaluate the principle of effective enforcement in the field of labour law, in the light of actual enforcement procedures in the Member States.

The abstract (and full article for those with a subscription) can be found on the Kluwer website. 'The Legal Position of Employees’ in Cross-Border Transfers of Undertakings in the EU: A Question of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law' (2006) 22 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations pp. 385-406.

Butterworths have just published the new edition of the International Commercial Litigation Handbook, edited by Andrew Dickinson; Roger Baggallay; Graham McBain; and Laurence Murphy QC.

Butterworths International Commerical Litigation Handbook brings together in a single volume key UK, EC and international materials which are essential for litigation and arbitration lawyers, as well as criminal and commercial lawyers generally.

This new edition is fully updated and expanded to include ADR and mediation materials. It also includes the text of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, together with their interpretative reports. In addition, Tables summarising the ratification, and entry into force of these Conventions are also included. The handbook contains UK statutes and statutory instruments on arbitration and the texts of the 1927 Geneva and 1958 New York Conventions on Arbitral Awards.

Other legislation included (together with the relevant Conventions) relate to international transport (road, rail, air, sea) and a variety of other areas including International organisations, state immunity, trusts, evidence, mutual legal assistance, limitation periods and currency.

Contents:

• Part I – Statutes; A. Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments; B. Applicable Law; C. International Arbitration; D. International Carriage: Road and Air; E. International Carriage: Rail and Sea; F. State Immunity and International Organisations; G. Insolvency; H. Evidence; I. Other;
• Part II – Civil Procedure Rules; Selected parts of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 1998/3132) and selected Practice Directions;
• Part III – Statutory Instruments; A. Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments; B. Applicable Law; C. International Arbitration; D. International Carriage: Road and Air; E. International Carriage: Rail and Sea; F. State Immunity and International Organisations; G. Insolvency; H. Other;
• Part IV – EC Materials; A. EC Treaties; B. Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments; C. Applicable Law; D. Insolvency; E. Service of documents; F. Evidence; G. Other;
• Part V – Other International Materials; A. Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments; B. Applicable law; C. International Arbitration; D. International Carriage (road and air); E. International Carriage (rail and sea); F. State Immunity; G. Insolvency; H. Service and Evidence

Price: £118.00. ISBN: 9781405718363. Available from Butterworths and Amazon.

CONFLICT OF LAWS .NET will be reviewing this text shortly; check back regularly for updates.

Tony Griffiths and Edward Smith have written an article on "Transatlantic insolvency jurisdiction - the interplay between Chapter 15 of US Bankruptcy Code and the EU Insolvency Regulation" in the Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation. The abstract reads as follows:

Considers the extent to which the US Bankruptcy Code Ch.15 and Council Regulation 1346/2000 have adopted the provisions of the Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency 1997. Examines key features of the US legislation and its advantages over the previous regime for foreign creditors, compares the EC approach to the centre of main interests (COMI) and notes the scope for US courts to refuse to recognise some COMI determinations made under EC law. Reviews the temporary and post recognition remedies available to representatives of foreign proceedings under Ch.15 and the remaining shortcomings of the legislation and of US bankruptcy jurisdiction in general for transatlantic insolvency cases.

"Transatlantic insolvency jurisdiction - the interplay between Chapter 15 of US Bankruptcy Code and the EU Insolvency Regulation" J.I.B.L.R. 2006, 21(8), 435-439 [westlaw link].

Paul Omar (Sussex University) has written an article in Insolvency Law & Practice on cross-border insolvency in the UK. Here's the abstract:

This article examines the provisions governing cross border insolvency under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.426, Council Regulation 1346/2000 and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency 1997, outlining the historical background to the development of the system. It identifies which countries are governed by which legislative provisions and outlines how conflicts are resolved for countries which are governed by two of the different regimes.

The article includes an analysis of two recent decisions of the Chancery division of the High Court - Daisytek-ISA Ltd, Re (2003) BCC 562 (Ch D), and BRAC Rent-A-Car International Inc, Re (2003) EWHC 128; (2003) 1 WLR 1421 (Ch D (Companies Ct)).

The full article can be found on Lawtel: "Cross-border insolvency law in the UK: an embarrassment of riches" Insolvency Law & Practice I.L. & P. (2006) Vol.22 No.4 Pages 132-136.