The borrower was in Sauvegarde insolvency proceedings in France and contended that the effect of those proceedings was that it had no obligation to provide that information, notwithstanding that it did not dispute that it had the obligation, rather that the French law of the insolvency proceedings governed the issue, not the English law jurisdiction granted by the facilities agreement.
The judge considered the jurisdictional position and the interaction of the Recast Brussels Convention, the Recast EC Regulations on Insolvency Proceedings (the “Regulations”), which applied as the French insolvency proceedings were opened pre 31 December 2020 and the jurisdiction created by the facilities agreement.
However, the judge decided that the legal basis for the application for a declaration arose from the facility agreement, governed by English law, not the Regulations and “has its source in the general civil law, and not specific rules relating to insolvency” and, whilst the court would have had jurisdiction under the Regulations pre Brexit, it had jurisdiction by reason of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the SFA, pursuant to common law principles. The obligations in the facilities agreement therefore prevailed, regardless of the Regulations.
Emerald Pasture Designated Activity Company and others v Cassini SAS and others  EWHC 2010 (Ch)
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.