Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 2e meervoudige burgerlijke kamer, beschikking van 12/11/2010 Scor Holding (Switzerland) AG e.a.
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2010:BO3908
Date: 2010-11-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82010NL1112(04)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
A and B have their seat in Switzerland. In 2001, they issued shares in A on the Swiss stock market. Depository receipts in respect of the shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Investors who suffered losses bundled their claims in two foundations with their seats in the Netherlands, X and Y, and brought class actions against A and B in New York due to breach of prospectus law. The proceedings ended in a settlement. In a pleading to the Gerechtshof of Arnhem (NL), A and B sought a declaration that the settlement was also binding with respect to investors over which the American court declined jurisdiction. Some of the investors were domiciled in the Netherlands, others in the various States in the EEA.
The Hof of Arnhem (NL) examines its jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation to the extent that the investors are known to have their domicile in an EU Member State. It finds that by the declaration of binding effect, such investors would receive claims under the settlement that they could not hold until now. On the other hand, these investor could not bring any further claims against A and B. Regarding the effect of establishing claims, the Hof holds jurisdiction pursuant to Article 5(1) Brussels I Regulation because A and B would have to satisfy the claims arising out of the settlement by payment to X and Y in the Netherlands. Article 5 Brussels I Regulation also applies according to the ECJ to future claims that only arise upon judgment. Regarding the preclusive effect, the Hof holds jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation. Some of the investors have their domicile in the Netherlands, and the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The Hof holds that it has jurisdiction, but requires A and B to call the investors concerned to the proceedings in order to safeguard their right to be heard.