UK: Activity Of International Banks' Branches

Last Updated: 13 August 2014
Article by Richard Caird, Sam Coulthard and Alexandra Doucas

Clarification on the application of the Brussels Regulation to the activities of banks' branches in McGraw Hill International (UK) LTD v. Deutsche Apotheker Und Arztebank EG and Others [2014] EWHC 2436 (Comm)

The caption of this judgment disguises a jurisdiction hearing contested between Standard & Poor's (S&P) and ABN Amro Bank NV (now The Royal Bank of Scotland NV) (ABN). The underlying dispute is one in which a bank incorporated in one EU state, acting by a branch in another, structured and had rated a financial product which was sold to investors in a number of other EU countries. Claims are now made in respect of that product by the investors, under the laws of their own states of domicile.

If this type of scenario is the fabric of international banking, this judgment represents a judicial unpicking of the strands so far as jurisdiction is concerned. With so many states involved, it is obviously very much open to question which court should determine the dispute. Such questions are to be answered as between EU member states by the Brussels Regulation, and this judgment provides useful guidance as to how the Regulation can be applied to a situation of this kind. It also provides a useful example of some of the procedural complexity which can result when one party seizes the initiative by issuing proceedings for a negative declaration as to liability in one state, in order to prevent a substantive claim being launched in another.

Facts and background to the proceedings

The complaint underlying the proceedings is brought by SRR, a legal foundation domiciled in the Netherlands, which has taken assignment of the claims of various investors in Constant Proportion Debt Obligations (CPDOs) arranged by ABN and given credit ratings by S&P. The investors were domiciled in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

The inference from the facts recited in the judgment is that S&P, seeing that SRR was likely to issue proceedings in the Netherlands, pre-empted it by seeking a negative declaration in England that it was not liable to SRR in respect of its rating of the CPDOs. It added ABN as a defendant to its proceedings seeking the following relief: 

  1. a declaration that ABN was not liable to SRR in respect of the CPDOs (referred to by the Judge as the Principal Declaration Claim); and
  2. a declaration that if (contrary to its primary case) S&P was liable to SRR, then ABN was also liable to SRR in respect of the same damage (referred to by the Judge as the Alternative Declaration Claim).

S&P failed to satisfy the Judge that, as a threshold issue, there was a genuine dispute between it and ABN in relation to the Principal Declaration Claim: S&P and ABN agreed on the premise of the declaration. Contrary to ABN's assertions that the Alternative Declaration Claim also disclosed no dispute between S&P and ABN (as it concerned ABN's liability to SRR only), the Judge held that there was a serious issue to be tried in that regard. Were ABN ultimately required to defend S&P's proceedings, ABN would deny the Alternative Declaration Claim.

S&P did not seek any contribution or indemnity from ABN. The inference is that as SRR was yet to defend the proceedings at the time of the hearing, it had not asserted any counterclaim and there was therefore no live claim for damages in the proceedings in respect of which an indemnity could be sought. 

SRR did indeed go on to issue proceedings in the Netherlands against both ABN and S&P based on liabilities arising under German, Austrian and Swiss law. As between SRR and S&P, the pre-existing English proceedings (in respect of which SRR raised no objection) meant that S&P's liability would be determined in England. 

ABN, however, challenged the jurisdiction of the English court in respect of the Principal and Alternative Declaration Claims, on the basis that it was domiciled in the Netherlands, had (properly) been sued there by SRR, and that it was desirable for all issues in relation to the same facts to be determined by the same court.

Burden of proof and relevant provisions of the Brussels Regulation

The usual rule set out in the Brussels Regulation is that a party domiciled in a Member State of the EU is entitled to be sued in the courts of that Member State (the domiciliary principle), unless one of the specific criteria for establishing jurisdiction elsewhere is satisfied. The judgment provides a useful reminder of two points in relation to establishing jurisdiction:

  1. that the claimant (here S&P) must show a good arguable case why the usual domiciliary principle should be displaced (rather than the Defendant, ABN, needing to prove that it should apply); and
  2. that it is the allegations of the party alleging liability which are important for these purposes. In a case such as this, that is not necessarily the claimant. Here, S&P was seeking negative declarations, rather than making any positive allegations of liability. It was therefore the allegations made by SRR (which appears to have played no part in the hearing) in the proceedings in the Netherlands which were crucial to the question of the proper court to hear the claims between S&P and ABN.

S&P relied on three provisions of the Regulation which state that the domiciliary principle may be displaced:

  1. Article 5.3 - "in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred";
  2. Article 5.5 - "as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place in which the branch, agency or other establishment is situated"; and
  3. Article 6.2 - where a party is sued "as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third party proceedings, in the court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the court of the jurisdiction which would be competent in his case".

The Judge's findings

The Judge's conclusions on each of these provisions should be of broader interest and application, outside the confines of this case.

Article 5.3

SRR's allegation against S&P and ABN was that the statements made about the rating of the CPDOs were misleading, and that this gave rise to a number of causes of action under the laws of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The Judge found that it was, in English law terms, a claim for negligent misrepresentation. According to the Judge's findings of fact, the material marketing the CPDOs, including the rating, was generated in London by ABN (a company domiciled in the Netherlands), and disseminated to investors in Germany, Austria and Switzerland who then decided to invest.

Where, then, had the "harmful event" for the purposes of article 5.3 occurred? Applying previous authorities, the Judge held that the harmful event in relation to negligent misrepresentation could equally take place in the place from which the relevant statements were put into circulation, or the place in which they were acted upon. Scrutinising SRR's allegations in the Dutch proceedings, it was clear that the relevant representations were acted upon in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Interestingly, the Judge found that the relevant statements were "put into circulation" there as well. In doing so, he drew a distinction between the place in which the statements originated, and the place where they were communicated, and it was the latter which was relevant for the purposes of article 5.3. The Judge held that the marketing material containing the statements was provided to investors during meetings in their own states of domicile.

Article 5.5

S&P alleged that the subject of the Alternative Declaration Claim (ABN's liability to SRR) arose out of the operations of ABN's London branch and that ABN could therefore properly be sued in England. 

The way in which the court considers arguments of this nature (as exemplified here) is subtly different in character to its consideration of other exceptions to the domiciliary principle, and that difference is important. It could be said that in relation to provisions such as article 5.3 (above) or 6.2 (below), the challenge relates to the domiciliary principle itself. In relation to article 5.5, the challenge is in some ways more to the physical place of domicile. The rationale appears to be that if a dispute is naturally described as having arisen out of the activities of a particular branch, that branch is a more appropriate "home" for the defendant for those purposes than its corporate domicile.

Applying that principle here, the Judge held that he must (for these purposes) compare the appropriateness of England as a jurisdiction with that of the Netherlands, ABN's place of domicile. The jurisdictions which might be relevant for the purposes of article 5.3 (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) were not relevant here.

On the facts, the Judge determined that the dispute arose out of the operations of ABN's London branch, in particular as a result of the creation there of all relevant marketing material. It was also ABN's London branch which devised, structured and marketed the CPDOs and which liaised with S&P in relation to the rating. For that reason, and despite S&P's inability to establish jurisdiction in England on any other basis, the Alternative Declaration Claim will be determined by the English court. This gives rise, so far as ABN is concerned, to the risk of defending simultaneous proceedings in England and the Netherlands, but the Judge was clear that while this would be undesirable, it was not a result to be avoided at any cost. 

Article 6.2

By contrast, S&P failed in relation to article 6.2. The Judge agreed with ABN that the present proceedings were not third party proceedings, S&P had sued ABN as a defendant like any other. S&P's perspective seems to have been that in real terms, it was itself in the position of defendant to SRR's claims, and reserved its right to seek an indemnity from ABN in respect of any liability it was proven to have. However, the Judge held that the court could not proceed on any other basis than the present one, which was that S&P had made a claim against ABN and there were, at present, no live claims against either by SRR in the English proceedings.

The Judge also noted that S&P's reason for including ABN as a defendant, motivated by its desire to avoid duplicative proceedings, seemed to have been to remove ABN from the jurisdiction of the Dutch court.

Key conclusions 

The judgment makes useful reading from various perspectives. The key points which should be drawn from it are perhaps these:

  1. Where a bank carrying out business internationally has structured its business such that some products or services are provided by a specific branch, it should be ready to be sued in the place of domicile of that branch.
  2. The court will not go to any lengths to avoid duplicative proceedings in EU states.
  3. Where the court considers jurisdiction in cases where negligent misrepresentation is alleged, it will consider the place from which the misstatements were put into circulation as good a place to found jurisdiction as that where they were received. The place where representations are put into circulation is not always the same as their place of origin, and it will be important to scrutinise how, where and to whom they are communicated.
  4. Proceedings seeking negative declarations are commonly used by parties who want to make sure that claims they know may be made against them are made in a court of their choosing. The Judge's conclusions on article 6.2 of the Regulation are a reminder that parties must take the rough with the smooth if they proceed in that way, and that they cannot automatically then assume the role of defendant where it is convenient to do so.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
6 Sep 2018, Business Breakfast, Glasgow, UK

Decarbonising our heat is a key component of The Scottish Energy Strategy and an essential piece of the complex matrix we must tackle if we are to meet our climate change obligations.

11 Sep 2018, Business Breakfast, Milton Keynes, UK

Join us for our next development breakfast round table event reflecting on the on-going planning discussion regarding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and helping you consider how best to cash in on the exciting opportunities by considering the benefits of promotion and option agreements.

20 Sep 2018, Seminar, London, UK

Environmental regulation and liability have risen up the boardroom agenda over the past decade. Recent changes to environmental sentencing have brought this area of risk even more into focus.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions