This Belgian Centre of Company Law (‘BCCL’) has published a paper with feedback on the ideas for a 28th Company Law Regime, as part of the Consultation which the Commission has organized on this topic.
The BCCL is a non-profit organization bringing together virtually all Belgian corporate law scholars and various Belgian corporate law practitioners with an academic affiliation.
Readers of this blog will be familiar with the European Court of Justice’s Feniks v Azteca ruling [1] – on which we reported earlier. There, the Court held that the actio pauliana – a form of fraudulent conveyance action – was a ‘matter relating to a contract’ for the purpose of Art 7(1) Brussels Ia (Regulation 1215/2012).[2] The upshot of this ruling was that the third party who allegedly frustrated the claimant’s contractual interest could be sued in the court of the place of performance of the defrauded contract (cfr Art 7(1)(b) Brussels Ia).
In Norbert Reitbauer aors v Enrico Casamassima (Case C-722/17 ECLI:EU:C:2019:285), AG Tanchev carefully reconsidered and further analysed the contractual nature of the actio pauliana.
Continue reading “A bad construction job. The contractual nature of the actio pauliana under Brussels Ia”
Corporate Finance Lab 