USA – Come gestire il rischio di azioni legali da parte dei dipendenti

26 Settembre 2022

  • USA
  • Contenzioso
  • Occupazione

Perché è importante

La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

  • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

  • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
  • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

👉 Approfondimenti

Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

  • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
  • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
  • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

Riassunto

In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

La regola dell’entità separata

Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

Conclusioni:

  • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
  • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

Summary

The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

What happened?

The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

So where do we look for law on those matters?

We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

Where are we now?

If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

  • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
  • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
  • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

The Norwegian exception

The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

How should your business act now?

The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

Verification of the identity of the company

Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

Request of financial  information

What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

Use the right contract

What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

Write down your agreements

Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

Follow your contract

If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

Document all transactions

From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

Has the debtor risen objections?

Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

Seek guarantees for your credits

This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

Check out our webinar on debt collection

On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

William Newman

Aree di attività

  • Mediazione
  • Arbitrato
  • Contratti
  • Lavoro
  • Contenzioso
Contatta William

La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

Distribution Agreements in Mexico

Scrivi a William





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    Riconoscimento ed esecuzione di sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti

    28 Agosto 2022

    • USA
    • Contenzioso

    Perché è importante

    La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

    • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

    Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

    • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
    • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

    👉 Approfondimenti

    Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

    Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

    What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

    The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

    The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

    Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

    The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

    Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

    As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

    Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

    The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

    The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

    Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

    But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

    The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

    • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
    • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
    • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

    And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

    The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

    And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

    And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

    It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

    And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

    Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

    I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

    In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

    In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

    In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

    In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

    In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

    In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

    In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

    Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

    Riassunto

    In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

    Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

    Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

    Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

    La regola dell’entità separata

    Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

    Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

    Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

    A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

    Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

    Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

    Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

    Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

    Conclusioni:

    • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
    • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

    On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

    In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

    The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

    As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

    Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

    With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

    As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

    In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

    The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

    The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

    It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

    The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

    The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

    Summary

    The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

    Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

    The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

    Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

    If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

    Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

    On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

    Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

    What happened?

    The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

    So where do we look for law on those matters?

    We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

    Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

    The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

    The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

    The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

    While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

    Where are we now?

    If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

    If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

    The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

    • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
    • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
    • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

    There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

    If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

    The Norwegian exception

    The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

    How should your business act now?

    The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

    International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

    The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

    What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

    The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

    The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

    Verification of the identity of the company

    Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

    Request of financial  information

    What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

    Use the right contract

    What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

    Write down your agreements

    Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

    Follow your contract

    If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

    Document all transactions

    From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

    Has the debtor risen objections?

    Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

    Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

    In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

    Seek guarantees for your credits

    This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

    Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

    Check out our webinar on debt collection

    On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

    You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

    Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

    If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

    William Newman

    Aree di attività

    • Mediazione
    • Arbitrato
    • Contratti
    • Lavoro
    • Contenzioso
    Contatta William

    La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

    Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

    Distribution Agreements in Mexico

    Scrivi a William





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

      Ukraine: new hope for the creditors as the debtors’ concern grows

      17 Gennaio 2022

      • Ucraina
      • Bancario
      • Fallimentare
      • Contenzioso

      Perché è importante

      La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

      • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

      Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

      • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
      • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

      👉 Approfondimenti

      Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

      Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

      What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

      The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

      The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

      Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

      The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

      Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

      As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

      Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

      The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

      The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

      Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

      But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

      The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

      • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
      • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
      • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

      And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

      The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

      And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

      And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

      It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

      And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

      Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

      I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

      In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

      In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

      In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

      In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

      In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

      In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

      In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

      Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

      Riassunto

      In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

      Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

      Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

      Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

      La regola dell’entità separata

      Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

      Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

      Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

      A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

      Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

      Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

      Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

      Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

      Conclusioni:

      • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
      • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

      On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

      In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

      The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

      As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

      Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

      With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

      As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

      In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

      The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

      The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

      It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

      The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

      The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

      Summary

      The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

      Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

      The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

      Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

      If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

      Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

      On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

      Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

      What happened?

      The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

      So where do we look for law on those matters?

      We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

      Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

      The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

      The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

      The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

      While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

      Where are we now?

      If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

      If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

      The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

      • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
      • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
      • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

      There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

      If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

      The Norwegian exception

      The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

      How should your business act now?

      The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

      International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

      The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

      What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

      The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

      The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

      Verification of the identity of the company

      Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

      Request of financial  information

      What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

      Use the right contract

      What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

      Write down your agreements

      Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

      Follow your contract

      If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

      Document all transactions

      From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

      Has the debtor risen objections?

      Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

      Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

      In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

      Seek guarantees for your credits

      This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

      Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

      Check out our webinar on debt collection

      On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

      You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

      Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

      If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

      Anton Molchanov

      Aree di attività

      • Diritto agrario
      • Diritto societario
      • Recupero credito
      • Titoli e strumenti finanziari
      • Fallimentare
      Contatta Anton

      La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

      Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

      Distribution Agreements in Mexico

      Scrivi a Anton





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        France | Arbitration clauses in international contracts with consumers are not enforceable

        16 Febbraio 2021

        • Francia
        • Arbitrato
        • Contratti
        • Contenzioso

        Perché è importante

        La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

        • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

        Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

        • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
        • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

        👉 Approfondimenti

        Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

        Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

        What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

        The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

        The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

        Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

        The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

        Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

        As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

        Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

        The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

        The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

        Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

        But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

        The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

        • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
        • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
        • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

        And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

        The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

        And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

        And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

        It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

        And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

        Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

        I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

        In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

        In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

        In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

        In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

        In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

        In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

        In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

        Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

        Riassunto

        In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

        Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

        Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

        Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

        La regola dell’entità separata

        Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

        Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

        Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

        A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

        Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

        Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

        Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

        Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

        Conclusioni:

        • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
        • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

        On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

        In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

        The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

        As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

        Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

        With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

        As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

        In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

        The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

        The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

        It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

        The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

        The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

        Summary

        The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

        Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

        The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

        Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

        If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

        Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

        On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

        Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

        What happened?

        The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

        So where do we look for law on those matters?

        We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

        Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

        The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

        The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

        The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

        While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

        Where are we now?

        If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

        If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

        The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

        • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
        • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
        • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

        There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

        If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

        The Norwegian exception

        The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

        How should your business act now?

        The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

        International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

        The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

        What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

        The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

        The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

        Verification of the identity of the company

        Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

        Request of financial  information

        What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

        Use the right contract

        What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

        Write down your agreements

        Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

        Follow your contract

        If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

        Document all transactions

        From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

        Has the debtor risen objections?

        Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

        Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

        In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

        Seek guarantees for your credits

        This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

        Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

        Check out our webinar on debt collection

        On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

        You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

        Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

        If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

        Alexandre Malan

        Aree di attività

        • Arbitrato
        • Distribuzione
        • Assicurazioni
        • Commercio internazionale
        • Contenzioso
        Contatta Alexandre

        La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

        Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

        Distribution Agreements in Mexico

        Scrivi a Alexandre





          Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
          Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

          Brexit | Jurisdiction and enforcement – What you need to know

          27 Gennaio 2021

          • Inghilterra
          • Contratti
          • Contenzioso

          Perché è importante

          La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

          • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

          Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

          • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
          • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

          👉 Approfondimenti

          Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

          Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

          What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

          The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

          The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

          Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

          The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

          Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

          As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

          Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

          The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

          The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

          Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

          But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

          The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

          • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
          • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
          • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

          And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

          The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

          And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

          And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

          It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

          And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

          Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

          I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

          In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

          In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

          In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

          In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

          In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

          In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

          In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

          Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

          Riassunto

          In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

          Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

          Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

          Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

          La regola dell’entità separata

          Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

          Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

          Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

          A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

          Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

          Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

          Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

          Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

          Conclusioni:

          • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
          • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

          On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

          In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

          The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

          As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

          Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

          With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

          As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

          In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

          The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

          The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

          It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

          The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

          The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

          Summary

          The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

          Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

          The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

          Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

          If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

          Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

          On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

          Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

          What happened?

          The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

          So where do we look for law on those matters?

          We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

          Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

          The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

          The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

          The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

          While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

          Where are we now?

          If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

          If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

          The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

          • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
          • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
          • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

          There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

          If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

          The Norwegian exception

          The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

          How should your business act now?

          The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

          International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

          The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

          What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

          The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

          The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

          Verification of the identity of the company

          Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

          Request of financial  information

          What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

          Use the right contract

          What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

          Write down your agreements

          Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

          Follow your contract

          If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

          Document all transactions

          From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

          Has the debtor risen objections?

          Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

          Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

          In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

          Seek guarantees for your credits

          This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

          Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

          Check out our webinar on debt collection

          On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

          You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

          Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

          If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

          Richard Samuel

          Aree di attività

          • Arbitrato
          • Recupero credito
          • Contenzioso
          Contatta Richard

          La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

          Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

          Distribution Agreements in Mexico

          Scrivi a Richard





            Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
            Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

            International debt recovery: risk prevention and best practices

            7 Dicembre 2020

            • Spagna
            • Distribuzione
            • Contenzioso

            Perché è importante

            La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

            • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

            Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

            • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
            • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

            👉 Approfondimenti

            Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

            Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

            What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

            The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

            The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

            Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

            The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

            Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

            As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

            Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

            The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

            The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

            Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

            But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

            The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

            • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
            • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
            • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

            And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

            The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

            And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

            And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

            It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

            And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

            Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

            I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

            In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

            In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

            In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

            In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

            In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

            In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

            In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

            Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

            Riassunto

            In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

            Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

            Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

            Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

            La regola dell’entità separata

            Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

            Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

            Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

            A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

            Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

            Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

            Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

            Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

            Conclusioni:

            • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
            • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

            On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

            In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

            The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

            As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

            Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

            With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

            As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

            In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

            The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

            The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

            It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

            The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

            The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

            Summary

            The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

            Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

            The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

            Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

            If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

            Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

            On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

            Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

            What happened?

            The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

            So where do we look for law on those matters?

            We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

            Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

            The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

            The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

            The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

            While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

            Where are we now?

            If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

            If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

            The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

            • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
            • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
            • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

            There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

            If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

            The Norwegian exception

            The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

            How should your business act now?

            The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

            International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

            The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

            What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

            The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

            The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

            Verification of the identity of the company

            Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

            Request of financial  information

            What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

            Use the right contract

            What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

            Write down your agreements

            Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

            Follow your contract

            If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

            Document all transactions

            From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

            Has the debtor risen objections?

            Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

            Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

            In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

            Seek guarantees for your credits

            This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

            Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

            Check out our webinar on debt collection

            On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

            You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

            Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

            If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

            Ignacio Alonso

            Aree di attività

            • Agenzia
            • Diritto societario
            • Distribuzione
            • Franchising
            Contatta Ignacio

            La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

            Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

            Distribution Agreements in Mexico

            Scrivi a Ignacio





              Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
              Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

              France – Abrupt termination of contractual relationships and arbitration

              8 Novembre 2020

              • Francia
              • Arbitrato
              • Contenzioso

              Perché è importante

              La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

              • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

              Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

              • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
              • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

              👉 Approfondimenti

              Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

              Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

              What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

              The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

              The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

              Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

              The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

              Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

              As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

              Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

              The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

              The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

              Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

              But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

              The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

              • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
              • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
              • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

              And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

              The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

              And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

              And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

              It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

              And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

              Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

              I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

              In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

              In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

              In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

              In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

              In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

              In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

              In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

              Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

              Riassunto

              In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

              Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

              Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

              Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

              La regola dell’entità separata

              Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

              Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

              Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

              A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

              Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

              Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

              Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

              Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

              Conclusioni:

              • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
              • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

              On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

              In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

              The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

              As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

              Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

              With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

              As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

              In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

              The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

              The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

              It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

              The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

              The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

              Summary

              The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

              Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

              The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

              Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

              If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

              Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

              On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

              Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

              What happened?

              The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

              So where do we look for law on those matters?

              We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

              Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

              The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

              The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

              The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

              While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

              Where are we now?

              If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

              If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

              The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

              • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
              • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
              • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

              There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

              If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

              The Norwegian exception

              The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

              How should your business act now?

              The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

              International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

              The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

              What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

              The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

              The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

              Verification of the identity of the company

              Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

              Request of financial  information

              What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

              Use the right contract

              What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

              Write down your agreements

              Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

              Follow your contract

              If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

              Document all transactions

              From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

              Has the debtor risen objections?

              Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

              Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

              In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

              Seek guarantees for your credits

              This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

              Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

              Check out our webinar on debt collection

              On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

              You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

              Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

              If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

              Alexandre Malan

              Aree di attività

              • Arbitrato
              • Distribuzione
              • Assicurazioni
              • Commercio internazionale
              • Contenzioso
              Contatta Alexandre

              La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

              Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

              Distribution Agreements in Mexico

              Scrivi a Alexandre





                Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

                Brexit – Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments during the Transition Period

                10 Ottobre 2020

                • Inghilterra
                • Contenzioso

                Perché è importante

                La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

                • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

                Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

                • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
                • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

                👉 Approfondimenti

                Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

                Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

                What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

                The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

                The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

                Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

                The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

                Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

                As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

                Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

                The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

                The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

                Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

                But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

                The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

                • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
                • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
                • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

                And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

                The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

                And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

                And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

                It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

                And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

                Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

                I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

                In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

                In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

                In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

                In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

                In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

                In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

                In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

                Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

                Riassunto

                In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

                Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

                Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

                Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

                La regola dell’entità separata

                Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

                Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

                Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

                A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

                Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

                Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

                Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

                Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

                Conclusioni:

                • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
                • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

                On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

                In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

                The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

                As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

                Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

                With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

                As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

                In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

                The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

                The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

                It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

                The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

                The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

                Summary

                The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

                Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

                The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

                Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

                If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

                Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

                On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

                Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

                What happened?

                The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

                So where do we look for law on those matters?

                We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

                Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

                The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

                The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

                The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

                While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

                Where are we now?

                If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

                If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

                The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

                • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
                • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
                • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

                There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

                If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

                The Norwegian exception

                The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

                How should your business act now?

                The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

                International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

                The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

                What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

                The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

                The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

                Verification of the identity of the company

                Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

                Request of financial  information

                What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

                Use the right contract

                What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

                Write down your agreements

                Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

                Follow your contract

                If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

                Document all transactions

                From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

                Has the debtor risen objections?

                Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

                Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

                In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

                Seek guarantees for your credits

                This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

                Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

                Check out our webinar on debt collection

                On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

                You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

                Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

                If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

                Richard Samuel

                Aree di attività

                • Arbitrato
                • Recupero credito
                • Contenzioso
                Contatta Richard

                La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

                Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

                Distribution Agreements in Mexico

                Scrivi a Richard





                  Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                  Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

                  The Protection of Community Design in the European Union

                  17 Settembre 2020

                  • Europa
                  • Proprietà industriale e intellettuale
                  • Contenzioso

                  Perché è importante

                  La clausola di scelta delle modalità di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale è conosciuta dagli addetti ai lavori come la “Midnight Clause”, perché è generalmente situata tra gli ultimi patti dell’accordo e viene spesso discussa alla fine di una trattativa, magari a notte fonda, dopo avere concordato tutto il resto del contratto.

                  • E a tarda notte, stanchi e con poca conoscenza di questo argomento, c’è il rischio che le parti commettano errori gravi, che possono compromettere la possibilità di gestire il contenzioso in modo corretto e con tempi e costi ragionevoli.

                  Si tratta, infatti, di un patto complicato, perché non esiste una regola standard per tutti i contratti e per tutti i paesi e un errore si può pagare (letteralmente) a caro prezzo.

                  • Un errore frequente, in particolare, è quello di insistere per ottenere la giurisdizione e la legge applicabile italiana, anche in casi in cui questa scelta si può rivelare un autogol, come in contratti con controparti operanti in Cina o negli USA.
                  • Un altro sbaglio è quello di affidarsi alla giurisdizione statale, quando per la tipologia di contratto e/o per il paese in cui andrà eseguito l’accordo sarebbe più efficace rivolgersi, se necessario, ad un arbitrato. E’ il caso, ad esempio, di accordi commerciali da adempiere negli USA.

                  👉 Approfondimenti

                  Video: Vedi qui il secondo episodio della serie Dispute Resolution Talks, con Antonio Valla e Lisa Schachne, in cui parliamo di arbitrato in California.

                  Long form: La clausola di scelta del foro: giudice italiano o straniero? Vai all’articolo

                  What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

                  The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

                  The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

                  Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

                  The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

                  Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

                  As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, “judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta”. But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

                  Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

                  The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

                  The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that “resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

                  Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that “corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties” can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

                  But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to “law” in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an “abuse of rights”, can such a situation be considered as “contrary to law” for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

                  The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

                  • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
                  • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
                  • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

                  And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

                  The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

                  And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression “contrary to the law” in article 204 LSC must be understood as “contrary to the legal system”, which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

                  And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

                  It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

                  And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an “in extremis” recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

                  Ogni datore di lavoro dovrebbe gestire il rischio di essere coinvolto in azioni legali promosse dai propri dipendenti.  Molte imprese credono di trattare bene i dipendenti e che gli stessi siano felici.  Di conseguenza, ritengono di non essere a rischio di controversie.  Nel mio lavoro, però, mi capita spesso di vedere i rapporti di lavoro inacidirsi e i dipendenti sorprendere la direzione rivolgendosi ad un avvocato.

                  I datori di lavoro dovrebbero gestire questo rischio in modo proattivo, invece di sperare che le cause legali non arrivino mai.  Difendere un’azienda dalle cause intentate da un attuale o ex dipendente richiede molto tempo e può essere molto costoso.  Può anche essere incredibilmente frustrante vedere un dipendente di cui l’azienda si fidava fare accuse false e dannose.  Tuttavia, i datori di lavoro possono adottare alcune misure preventive per ridurre l’impatto di un’azione legale: di seguito ne illustro otto.

                  In primo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione l’acquisto di un’assicurazione che copra le richieste di risarcimento da parte dei dipendenti.  Negli Stati Uniti, per esempio, questa assicurazione è chiamata “assicurazione per la responsabilità civile per le pratiche lavorative” (“EPLI”).  Questo tipo di polizze assicurative permette di pagare un avvocato per difendere l’impresa in caso di azioni legali, e consente anche di coprire l’importo richiesto dal dipendente o riconosciutogli dal tribunale.  Sebbene l’assicurazione abbia un costo, molte aziende preferiscono pagare premi regolari e prevedibili piuttosto che dover affrontare spese legali improvvise, elevate e imprevedibili ed eventuali risarcimenti ai dipendenti.

                  In secondo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero implementare e far rispettare le politiche sulle molestie sessuali.  Politiche come queste scoraggiano il tipo di comportamento che può esporre l’azienda a responsabilità, ma in molte giurisdizioni possono anche costituire una difesa per l’impresa, nel caso in cui un dipendente la citi in giudizio per aver permesso le molestie.

                  In terzo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero esaminare seriamente le disparità di retribuzione e di ruolo.  Se i dipendenti più pagati di un’azienda fossero in gran parte uomini e quelli meno pagati fossero in gran parte donne, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione sessuale.  Allo stesso modo, se i dirigenti fossero in gran parte bianchi, mentre gli operai in gran parte persone di colore, un dipendente potrebbe sostenere di essere vittima di discriminazione razziale in azienda.  Piuttosto che affrontare questi problemi, un’impresa dovrebbe verificare se queste disparità esistano o meno nel proprio ambiente di lavoro e, in caso affermativo, affrontarle.

                  In quarto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero valutare se vogliono che le controversie di lavoro siano sottoposte ad arbitrato anziché aa un tribunale.  I datori di lavoro possono determinare questo aspetto inserendo una clausola arbitrale nelle proposte di assunzione che inviano ai dipendenti al momento dell’assunzione.  L’arbitrato presenta alcuni vantaggi: tende ad essere più rapido, è privato, ha la reputazione di essere un foro amichevole per i datori di lavoro e tende a costare meno.  Ma ha anche alcuni svantaggi: non permette di fare appello nel merito della controversia e può costare più di una causa giudiziaria, a seconda del tipo di caso.

                  In quinto luogo, ogni volta che un dipendente riveli di avere un problema di salute, l’azienda dovrebbe immediatamente valutare come affrontarlo.  Molti datori di lavoro possono ignorare la comunicazione di un problema di salute se non sembra importante per il lavoro del dipendente.  Tuttavia, se in seguito il dipendente ritenesse di essere stato penalizzato a causa del problema di salute, potrebbe agire in giudizio per discriminazione.  Prima che ciò accada, il datore di lavoro dovrebbe collaborare con il dipendente per assicurarsi che il problema di salute non ostacoli le prestazioni lavorative.

                  In sesto luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero assicurarsi di prendere decisioni coerenti.  Se un datore di lavoro permettesse a un dipendente di lavorare da casa, altri dipendenti potrebbero volere lo stesso trattamento.  E se un datore di lavoro licenziasse un dipendente, questi potrebbe chiedersi perché un altro non abbia avuto la stessa sorte.  I datori di lavoro possono ridurre il rischio di una causa legale stabilendo delle politiche precise e rispettandole.

                  In settimo luogo, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero consultare spesso un avvocato di fiducia qualora insorgano problemi di lavoro.  Spendere qualche centinaio di dollari per parlare con un avvocato per un’ora prima di licenziare un dipendente o prima di rispondere ad un reclamo potrebbe aiutare un datore di lavoro a evitare una causa che potrebbe costare decine o addirittura centinaia di migliaia di dollari.

                  Infine, i datori di lavoro dovrebbero prendere in considerazione la possibilità di accordarsi per risolvere le controversie con i dipendenti, anche se sono prive di merito.  Nessuna impresa vorrebbe che un dipendente si approfittasse di lei, ma le cause legali sono spesso più costose e fastidiose del costo di un accordo.  Spendere molto denaro per la difesa, anche in caso di successo, può essere meno economico di scendere a compromessi e pagare al dipendente una frazione di quanto richiesto.

                  Riassunto

                  In tutto il mondo i tribunali emettono sentenze contro soggetti che possiedono beni negli Stati Uniti. Ad esempio, alcune sentenze possono riguardare società americane che svolgono attività commerciali all’estero o cittadini che detengono conti bancari presso banche americane. Dopo avere vinto la causa all’estero, chi ha promosso l’azione giudiziaria (“attore”) potrebbe dover avviare un procedimento negli Stati Uniti per utilizzare la sentenza per aggredire i beni americani della controparte (“convenuto”). Questo processo, chiamato “domestication”, prevede alcune regole specifiche che può essere utile conoscere prima di procedere.

                  Il debitore è soggetto alla giurisdizione personale negli USA?

                  Ai sensi dell’Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, i tribunali americani possono chiedere la prova della legittimità di una sentenza straniera prima di eseguirla. Una questione che i tribunali spesso esaminano è se il debitore era soggetto alla giurisdizione personale nel paese straniero. Se il tribunale USA ritiene che il debitore non fosse soggetto alla giurisdizione all’estero, non può eseguire la sentenza negli Stati Uniti. Per determinare l’esistenza di una giurisdizione personale all’estero, i tribunali americani possono esaminare sia la legge della giurisdizione straniera sia quella americana, come ha fatto il tribunale in questo caso.

                  Inoltre, i tribunali americani possono anche richiedere che il debitore sia soggetto alla giurisdizione personale  secondo le leggi negli Stati Uniti. A seguito di una decisione della corte d’appello di New York, alcuni avvocati hanno sostenuto che il processo di riconoscimento ed esecuzione di una sentenza negli Stati Uniti non implicassero una vera e propria causa che richiedesse la giurisdizione personale sul debitore della sentenza. Tuttavia, la corte d’appello di New York ha chiarito in un’altra decisione che la giurisdizione personale è richiesta per i debitori quando si riconoscono ed eseguono sentenze straniere.

                  La regola dell’entità separata

                  Le parti in causa cercano spesso di far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti perché i convenuti hanno conti presso banche americane. Gli Stati Uniti possono anche sembrare un luogo attraente per la domestication di una sentenza, perché quasi tutte le principali banche del mondo hanno un ufficio o svolgono attività commerciali negli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, il fatto che una banca sia soggetta alla giurisdizione degli Stati Uniti non significa che i tribunali daranno sicuramente esecuzione alle sentenze straniere contro i beni in loro possesso.

                  Al contrario, giurisdizioni come New York applicano la “Separate Entity Rule“. Questa regola tratta ogni filiale di un istituto finanziario come se fosse un’entità separata. Ciò significa che, ad esempio, una sentenza di New York può essere utilizzata solo per aggredire i beni di una banca svizzera detenuti presso una sua filiale di New York. La sentenza non può invece essere utilizzata per aggredire crediti presso le filiali svizzere.

                  Secondo la Corte Suprema di New York, lo scopo della Separate Entity Rule è quello di incoraggiare le banche a operare in una giurisdizione senza temere di sottoporre tutti i loro beni internazionali a giudizi domestici. Inoltre, si vuole evitare che altre giurisdizioni espongano le banche americane a sentenze straniere. Inoltre, si rende più facile per le filiali bancarie rispettare le leggi di un solo Paese, evitando conflitti tra le leggi o sentenze di Paesi diversi, ed eseguire ricerche solo sui beni nazionali e non su quelli di tutto il mondo.

                  A causa di questa regola, i creditori, tali in virtù di sentenze provenienti da fuori gli Stati Uniti, dovrebbero far riconoscere ed eseguire le sentenze nello stesso luogo in cui si trovano i beni dei debitori, non solo dove si trovano le loro banche.

                  Trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione

                  Sebbene le parti in causa abbiano spesso bisogno di far riconoscere ed eseguire una sentenza all’estero per aggredire i beni in tale  giurisdizione, vi sono alcuni casi in cui un tribunale può ordinare a una parte di trasferire i beni nella giurisdizione in cui ha sede l’attore.

                  Questo problema è emerso in un caso importante a New York. In quel caso, il tribunale ha stabilito che a un convenuto soggetto alla giurisdizione personale di New York poteva essere ordinato di trasferire a New York i beni fisici in suo possesso in esecuzione di una sentenza. In un caso successivo, il tribunale ha stabilito che ciò non era in conflitto con la Separate Entity Rule, in quanto tale norma si applica solo ai conti bancari presso le filiali delle banche.

                  Questo principio può essere utile per le parti in causa che desiderino la domestication di una sentenza contro un convenuto soggetto a giurisdizione personale negli Stati Uniti, e che possieda tuttavia beni fisici al di fuori del Paese. In questo modo si possono applicare le procedure del sistema giuridico americano per l’esecuzione delle sentenze, consentendo al contempo al creditore di riscuotere i beni esteri.

                  Conclusioni:

                  • gli attori devono assicurarsi che esista la giurisdizione personale sui convenuti non solo in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intentano la causa, ma anche in base alle leggi della giurisdizione in cui intendono eseguire le sentenze;
                  • gli attori devono assicurarsi che le giurisdizioni in cui eseguono le sentenze consentano di aggredire effettivamente i beni dei convenuti, poiché alcune potrebbero non farlo in base a norme come la Separate Entity Rule.

                  On 6 January 2022 Ukraine finally cancelled almost a two-year long moratorium for the creditor-trigged insolvencies. The moratorium was imposed in the late spring 2020 as a part of the nation’ response to first wave of COVID pandemic.

                  In a nutshell, the moratorium prohibited creditors from requesting insolvency action against those debtors whose obligations matured after 12 March 2020. A separate set of measures also lifted an early warning duty obliging directors of the companies in distress to file for insolvency within one month from a moment when the distress appeared.

                  The moratorium was heavily criticized by both domestic and international creditors, who legitimately blamed it for a non-selective approach.

                  As further 2021 statistic shown, the moratorium never seemed to reach a goal proclaimed by it authors and made no increase for insolvency relief requests by the debtor companies.

                  Instead, the country has been facing a steady increase in “zombie” companies having little to none liquidation value – and their owners clearly intending to get away with no creditor repayment.

                  With the moratorium being lifted off the creditors do expect to show no mercy to their Ukrainian debtors. This particularly worries those debtors potentially involved in wrongful trade or fraudulent action. Even with the moratorium in place in 2021 Ukrainian courts confirmed more than UAH 150 mln in creditors loss to be paid by the insolvent companies’ management and owners themselves. This number is expected to triple in 2022 – and there already were Supreme Court’s 2021 judgements confirming liability of the real owners standing behind opaque shareholder company and nominal directors.

                  As the creditors’ agitation grows, so do the debtor company owners’ concerns. As the owners\management liability process is extremely bespoke and often requires swift action, it is of crucial importance to get a throughout legal advise on either side – and much better to do that before the actual claim has been brought.

                  In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

                  The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as “competence-competence”, Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

                  The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

                  It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

                  The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

                  The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the “weak” party.

                  Summary

                  The recent post-Brexit trade deal makes no provision for jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments.

                  Therefore, the UK dropped out of the jurisdiction of the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) on 31 December 2020.

                  The EU has not yet approved the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention, but may do in the future.

                  Unless the transitional provisions from the Withdrawal Agreement apply, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be governed by the Hague Convention 2005 if there is an applicable exclusive jurisdiction clause

                  If the Hague Convention of 2005 does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules.

                  Judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

                  On the first day of 2021 the UK left the EU regimes with which European lawyers are familiar. We appeared to enter “uncharted territory”. Not so. In fact, there are charts for this territory – or maps, to use a more modern word. You just need to know which maps.

                  Whether you are a lawyer or a businessperson, in whatever country, you need answers to two questions. Which laws govern jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and the UK; and how should businesses act as a result?

                  What happened?

                  The EU and UK reached a post-Brexit trade deal, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”), on Christmas Eve 2020. The provisions of the TCA became UK law as the European Union (Future Relationship) Act on 31 December 2020. The TCA made provision for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but did not mention judicial cooperation in civil matters, or jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings.

                  So where do we look for law on those matters?

                  We look at the position immediately before Brexit. As every lawyer should know the Brussels (Recast) Regulation (No. 1215/2012) governed the enforcement and recognition of judgments between EU member states.

                  Also, the Lugano Convention 2007 governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in commercial and civil matters between EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It operates in substantially the same way as Brussels (Recast) does between EU member states.

                  The UK was party to the Convention by virtue of its EU membership. Now that the UK is not a member of the EU, the contracting parties could agree that the UK could join the Lugano Convention as an independent contracting party, and there would be little change to the position on jurisdiction and enforcement. English jurisdiction clauses would continue to be respected and English court judgments would continue to be readily enforceable throughout EU member states and EFTA countries, and vice versa.

                  The problem is that the EU has not agreed to the UK joining the Lugano Convention

                  The UK submitted its application to accede to the Lugano Convention in its own right on 8 April 2020. But accession requires the consent of all contracting parties including the EU. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have indicated their support for the UK’s accession, but the EU’s position is still not yet clear and the TCA is silent on this matter.

                  While the EU still may belatedly support the UK’s accession to Lugano, it does not currently apply. In any case, a three-month time-lag applies between agreement and entry into force, unless all the contracting parties agree to waive it.

                  Where are we now?

                  If the transitional provisions provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement as explained in my previous post do not apply, the Brussels (Recast) Regulation will not apply to jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU and UK.

                  If they do not, then you first need to decide whether the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 is applicable. The Hague Convention 2005 applies between EU Member States, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro. The Hague Convention first came into force for the UK when the EU acceded on 1 October 2015 and the UK re-acceded after Brexit in its own right with effect from 1 January 2021.

                  The Hague Convention 2005 applies if:

                  • The dispute falls within the scope of the Convention as provided for by Article 2 – e.g. the Convention does not apply to employment and consumer contracts or claims for personal injury;
                  • There is an exclusive jurisdiction clause within the meaning of Article 3; and
                  • The exclusive jurisdiction clause is entered into after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized, and proceedings are commenced after the Convention came into force for the country whose courts are seized within the meaning of Article 16.

                  There is some uncertainty as to whether EU member states will treat the Hague Convention as having been in force from 1 October 2015, or only from when the UK re-accedes on 1 January 2021. The UK’s view is that the Convention will apply to the UK from 1 October 2015; the EU’s view is that it will apply to the UK from 1 January 2021. What is not in dispute is that for exclusive English jurisdiction clauses agreed on or after 1 January 2021, the contracting states will respect exclusive English jurisdiction clauses and enforce the resulting judgments.

                  If the 2005 Hague Convention does not apply, then the UK and EU courts will apply their own national rules to questions of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the UK, the rules will essentially be the same as the ‘common-law’ rules currently on enforcement applied to non-EU parties, for example the United States.

                  The Norwegian exception

                  The UK and Norway have reached an agreement which extends and updates an old mutual enforcement treaty, the 1961 Convention for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters between the UK and Norway, which will apply if the UK does not re-accede to the Lugano Convention. The practical effect of this agreement is that judgments will continue to be reciprocally enforceable between the UK and Norway from 1 January 2021.

                  How should your business act now?

                  The applicable legal framework for each dispute will depend on the facts of each case. You should review the dispute resolution clauses in your cross-border contracts to assess how they may be affected by Brexit and to seek specialist advice where necessary. You should also seek advice on dispute resolution provisions when entering into new cross-border contracts in 2021.

                  International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.

                  The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.

                  What are the best practices to manage international receivables?

                  The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.

                  The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.

                  Verification of the identity of the company

                  Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.

                  Request of financial  information

                  What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance  with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.

                  Use the right contract

                  What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…

                  Write down your agreements

                  Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?

                  Follow your contract

                  If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.

                  Document all transactions

                  From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.

                  Has the debtor risen objections?

                  Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.

                  Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments

                  In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.

                  Seek guarantees for your credits

                  This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.

                  Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.

                  Check out our webinar on debt collection

                  On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.

                  You can watch the recording of the webinar here.

                  Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection

                  If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.

                  Christian Montana

                  Aree di attività

                  • Diritto internazionale privato
                  • Contratti
                  • Diritto societario
                  • Successioni
                  • Contenzioso
                  Contatta Christian

                  La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

                  Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

                  Distribution Agreements in Mexico

                  Scrivi a Christian





                    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.