The UK Court of Appeal refuses to revive private damages claims against a subsidiary of the addressee of the graphite cartel EC decision (Emerson Electric / Mersen)

Subsidiaries as “branches” for undertakings: a new route to jurisdiction under Article 5(5) of the Brussels Regulation?* Stand alone, follow on and hybrid damages claims arising out of multijurisdictional cartels are generating some of the most novel and interesting current problems in conflicts of laws, both in relation to issues of jurisdiction and applicable law. On the jurisdictional side conventional wisdom has it that there are three main routes by which Claimants can seize English jurisdiction. First, you can find a so-called “Anchor Defendant” that is a cartelist (and it must be an addressee cartelist if in the CAT so long as Mersen is good law) domiciled here, against which you can proceed as of right under Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation. Then you can bring in other

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Blackstone Chambers (London)

Quotation

Tom de la Mare, The UK Court of Appeal refuses to revive private damages claims against a subsidiary of the addressee of the graphite cartel EC decision (Emerson Electric / Mersen), 28 November 2012, e-Competitions November 2012, Art. N° 60083

Visites 188

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues