Advertisement

Jurisdiction and the WCAM

  • Thijs BostersEmail author
Chapter
  • 344 Downloads

Abstract

Various connecting factors can be used in order to confer jurisdiction to a certain court (e.g. the court parties choose in a choice of forum agreement, the domicile of the defendant, the Erfolgsort/Handlungsort, the place of performance of an obligation). In order to determine the competent court in a collective settlement procedure, these connecting factors must be put in perspective with the particularities of the collective settlement procedure (i.e. an interest group is a party to the procedure, rather than the actual plaintiff parties). This chapter sets out whether and how jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court with respect to a collective settlement procedure. In addition, it is analysed whether the way jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court is in line with the goals of both collective redress and the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

Keywords

Collective settlement Interest group Opt-out Settlement agreement Jurisdiction Choice of forum clause Domicile of the defendant Submission Handlungsort Erfolgsort Place of performance 

References

  1. Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Kramer XE (2014) ‘Securities Collective Action and Private International Law Issues in Dutch WCAM Settlements: Global Aspirations and Regional Boundaries’. Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal, 2014Google Scholar
  3. Kuipers JJ (2013) ‘Schemes of arrangement and voluntary collective redress: a gap in the Brussels Regulation’. Journal of Private International Law 2Google Scholar
  4. Lein E (2012) ‘Cross-border collective redress and jurisdiction under Brussels I: a mismatch’. In: Fairgrieve D, Lein E (eds) Extraterritoriality and collective redress. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  6. Pertegás M et al (2004) Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union. Intersentia, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Polak MV (2006) ‘Iedereen en overal? Internationaal privaatrecht rond Massaclaims’. NJB 41Google Scholar
  8. Poot MF (2006) ‘Internationale afwikkeling van massaschades met de wet collectieve afwikkeling massaschade’. Geschriften vanwege de vereniging Corporate Litigation 2005–2006. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  9. Rauscher T (2006) Europaïsches Zivilprozeßrecht Kommentar I. MunichGoogle Scholar
  10. Stefanelli J (2012) ‘Parallel litigation and cross-border collective actions under the Brussels I-bis framework: lessons from abroad’. In: Fairgrieve D, Lein E (eds) Extraterritoriality and collective redress. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Van Lith H (2011) The Dutch collective settlements act and private international law. Maklu, ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Schaick AC (2011) ‘Eerste aanleg’, Asser Procesrecht 2. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  13. Vriesendorp RD (2010) ‘Faillissement en massaschade, twee kanten van dezelfde medaille’. Massificatie in het privaatrecht: opstellen ter gelegenheid van het 200-jarig bestaan van het genootschap Iustitia & Amicitia. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Supreme Court of the NetherlandsThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations