The Court considered whether the principle of universality in insolvency proceedings enabled the court to enforce a judgment in personam which had been given in New York against the defendants in and for the purposes of bankruptcy proceedings in New York, notwithstanding that the defendants had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the New York court.
Held: The principle had that effect:
‘The ordinary rules for enforcing, or more precisely not enforcing, foreign judgments in personam do not apply to bankruptcy proceedings’
‘For the reasons we set out in writing the appeal is allowed; the cross-appeal is dismissed; paragraphs 4 to 6 of the order of Mr Nicholas Strauss QC are set aside; paragraphs 3 and 5 of the judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court will be enforced; but we are going to give a stay for 28 days to allow them to go off to the Supreme Court and see if they can get permission. Order provides for costs to be paid by the respondent, to pay back some money they paid on costs already.
Judges:
Ward, Wilson, Henderson LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 1047
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Rubin and Another v Eurofinance Sa and Others ChD 31-Jul-2009
. .
Cited by:
Order – Rubin and Another (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance Sa and Others CA 30-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership v Pt Bakrie Investindo ComC 17-Feb-2011
Action on an instrument of guarantee.
Held: judgment for the Claimant in respect of the principal sum of US$2m. and such interest payments as were due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, International
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.424932