A new book about the unification of conflict of laws in Europe, edited by Professor Dr. Eva-Maria Kieninger and Professor Dr. Oliver RemienW, both University of Würzburg, has recently been released. More information including a German abstract can be found on the publisher’s website. The table of contents reads as follows:

• Einführung, Prof. Dr. Eva-Maria Kieninger, University of Würzburg
• Europäische Kollisionsrechtsvereinheitlichung: Überblick – Kompetenzen – Grundfragen, Prof. Dr. Wulf-Henning Roth, LL.M. (Harvard), University of Bonn
• Praktische Erfahrungen mit der Rechtsvereinheitlichung in der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen, Dr. Rolf Wagner, Federal Ministry of Justice, Berlin
• Die Rolle des EuGH im internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht, Prof. Dr. Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, LL.M. (Michigan), University of Göttingen
• The Common Law and EU Private International Law, Trevor C Hartley, London
• Die Rechtswahl und ihre Grenzen unter der Rom I-VO, Prof. Dr. Andreas Spickhoff, University of Göttingen
• Die Haftung für Umweltschäden im Gefüge der Rom II-VO, Professor Dr. Karsten Thorn, LL.M. (Georgetown), Bucerius Law School, Hamburg
• Das Europäische Zivilprozessrecht im Spannungsfeld zwischen Beschleunigung und Beklagtenschutz, Prof. Dr. Astrid Stadler, Universitiy of Konstanz/University of Rotterdam
• Traum, Albtraum und Perspektiven der Europäischen Kollisionsrechtsvereinheitlichung – Schlusswort, Prof. Dr. Oliver Remien, University of Würzburg

Among all the buzz about a possible (but much feared) ‘Grexit’, there are two elements in the story of the Greek debt restructuring (diplomatically called ‘Private Sector Involvement‘) which should be of interest for conflict lawyers.

First the fact that the governing law of the Greek bonds was one of the central issues in the discussion which led to the restructuring. The law governing sovereign bonds is usually only a side issue which does not attract much attention – probably because so many of the bonds issued are governed either by English law or the law of New York. The Greek bonds (issued or guaranteed by Greece) which were subject of the restructuring were overwhelmingly governed by Greek law. This peculiar feature gave Greece much more leeway vis-à-vis the bondholders, as Greece could modify its law and by doing so directly impact the terms of the debt. To give one element of comparison, when Argentina restructured its debt in 2005, the vast majority of the bonds concerned were governed by either English law or the law of New York, as is common in the market.

Greece will, however, no be able to repeat this trick twice. This distinctive feature of the Greek bonds which were eligible for the swap (for a total amount of EUR 206 billion), will indeed disappear. The new bonds which were offered to the existing bondholders as compensation for the substantial haircut they had to swallow, are issued under English law while the older bonds (tendered in the exchange) were mostly Greek law bonds. This choice of law does make a difference as it means that investors holding the new bonds will not be subject to a change in Greek legislation which Greece could unilaterally decide to impose.

The second element worth noticing is the nature of the law adopted by Greece as part of its restructuring operation. The Act which was rushed through the Greek Parliament (but had been anticipated by some highly knowledgeable commentators), inserted so-called collective action clauses (CAC’s) in the documentation. This meant altering the terms of the debt, in a retroactive fashion. This move has been much discussed : rating agencies had warned that activating the CAC’s would trigger lowering the issue ratings on the debt issues concerned, ISDA’s determination committee also decided that the use of collective action clauses meant that a so-called Restructuring Credit Event had occurred and some have even warned that this move could be challenged under the BIT’s signed by Greece. Although the use of CAC’s has been widely promoted over the past decade, with the EU recently adopting its own versions of the CAC’s, the use of these clauses in the sovereign debt market remains a relatively novel phenomenon.

The Greek Act (Law 4050/2012 adopted by the Greek Parliament on 23 February 2012) introducing CACs in the terms of the outstanding Greek bonds allows for one single vote across all issues, an interesting feature. Even more interesting is that the law provides that its provisions

“aim to protect the supreme public interest, are mandatory rules effective immediately, prevail any contrary legislation of general or special provisions…” (translation courtesy of Andrea Koutras’ blog).

This is a clear reference to Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation and an attempt to strengthen the Greek legislation by elevating it to the status of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’. It remains to be seen whether this will be sufficient to ensure that the law will be applied whenever investors (private or institutional) institute legal proceedings against what some of them have deemed to be a ‘forced expropriation‘. It is indeed almost inevitable that the whole operation will lead to much litigation, which will raise interesting features of investment law and even human rights. Another issue which will be discussed is whether the Greek Mopping Up Law will be applied at all by courts and possibly arbitral tribunals called to decide on claims filed by investors. Given the limitations imposed by Article 9.3 of the Rome I Regulation on the application of foreign mandatory rules, the Regulation may offer a very limited protection to Greece if investors who have not accepted the bond swap but were nonetheless forced to take part on the basis of the CAC’s, succeed in bringing proceedings outside Greece.

Editors’ note: Patrick Wautelet is a professor of law at Liege University.

The next event in the Herbert Smith Private International Law Seminar Series at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law will take place on Tuesday 29 May, from 5:30pm, at the Institute’s concrete bunker, Charles Clore House, Russell Square, London W1.

Entitled “Jurisdiction of the North-American Courts: When Will the Long Arm Reach You?”, the seminar will consider important recent case law of the US and Canadian Supreme Courts considering the grounds for asserting jurisdiction in cross-border cases, in particular J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown (US) and Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda (Canada).

Professor Linda Silberman (Martin Lipton Professor of Law, New York University), Adam Johnson (partner, Herbert Smith LLP, London) and Alexander Layton QC (barrister, 20 Essex Street, London) will tackle the subject matter under the chairmanship of Lord Collins of Mapesbury.

To book your place, and for other details, please go to the Institute’s website: http://www.biicl.org/events/view/-/id/706/

On 15 and 16 June 2012, the Publisher and Advisory Board of the “Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht – Journal of Common Private Law” (GPR) will host a conference on the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law at Tübingen University. More information (in German) is available here and here .

The programme reads as follows:

Freitag, 15. Juni 2012 (Friday, 15 June 2012)

13:30  Grußwort und Einführung

• Prof. Dr. Heinz-Dieter Assmann, Vice President of the University of Tübingen
• Prof. Dr. Jörg Kinzig, Vice Dean of the Law School at the University of Tübingen
• Prof. Dr. Martin Gebauer, University of Tübingen

I. Grundlagen und Anwendungsbereich

14:00 – 14:30  Ein europäisches Kaufrecht für grenzübergreifende Kaufverträge – seine Bedeutung auf offenen Märkten, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Basedow, Max Plack Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

14:30 – 15:00  Überschießende Anwendung des EU-Kaufrechts – mitgliedstaatliche Optionen und Parteiautonomie , Prof. Dr. Boris Schinkels, University of Greifswald

15:00 – 15:30  Diskussion (Discussion), Chair: Prof. Dr. Martin Gebauer, University of Tübingen

15:30 – 16:00  Kaffee-Pause (Coffee break)

II. Die Wahl des EU-Kaufrechts und ihre kollisionsrechtliche Verortung

16:00 – 16:30  Rechtsgrundlage des künftigen EU-Kaufrechts und kollisionsrechtliche Einordnung seiner Wahl, Dr. Karl-Philipp Wojcik, Brussels

16:30 – 17:00  Dogmatische Konstruktion der Einwahl in das EU-Kaufrecht (2., 28. oder integriertes Regime) und die praktischen Folgen, Prof. Dr. Matthias Lehmann, University of Halle

17:00 – 17:30  Die aufgeklärte Entscheidung: Modalitäten der Einwahl und der kollisionsrechtliche Verbraucherschutz, Dr. Christoph Busch, University of Osnabrück

17:30 – 18:30 Uhr Diskussion (Discussion), Chair: Prof. Dr. Michael Stürner, University of Frankfurt (Oder)

20:00 Uhr Abendessen (Dinner)

Samstag, 16. Juni 2012 (Saturday, 6 June 2012)

III. Maßstäbe der Lückenfüllung

9:00 – 9:30  Interne und externe Lücken – die Rolle des EuGH und der mitgliedstaatlichen Gerichte, Prof. Dr. Beate Gsell, University of Munich

9:30 – 10:00  Externe Lücken, allgemeines Kollisionsrecht und die Rolle der Parteiautonomie, insbesondere beim Verbrauchervertrag, Prof. Dr. Dennis Solomon, University oc Passau

10:00 – 10:30  Diskussion (Discussion), Chair: Prof. Dr. Peter Jung, University of Basel

10:30 – 11:00  Kaffee-Pause (Coffee break)

IV. Drittstaatensachverhalte und Perspektiven der praktischen Rezeption des EU-Kaufrechts

11:00 – 11:30  Der Drittstaatensachverhalt und das EU-Kaufrecht: Perspektiven mitglied- wie drittstaatlicher Gerichte und die Wahrung des internationalen Entscheidungseinklangs, Prof. Dr. Stefan Leible, University of Bayreuth

11:30 – 12:00  EU-Kaufrecht und CISG – Konkurrenz, Gemeinsamkeiten, Unterschiede der zu erwartenden Akzeptanz in der Rechtspraxis, Prof. Dr. Friedrich Graf von Westphalen, Cologne

12:00 – 12:30  Diskussion (Discussion), Chair: Prof. Dr. Matthias Lehmann, University of Halle

13:00  Ende der Tagung (End of conference)

Prof. Zamora Cabot and Victoria Camarero (University of Castellón), have just published a new, co-authored article in the series Working Papers “El Tiempo de los Derechos” (ISSN: 1989-8797).

Focusing on the USA, Canada and the United Kingdom, the authors of the paper have carried out an extensive, thoroughly documented initial survey (published elsewhere) of the relationship between legal pluralism and multiculturality. Along this line, in the present study they offer some introductory reflections to frame the complex and multifaceted world of legal pluralism, highlighting the religious factor (especially Muslims and the Sharia).  They then proceed with two sections devoted to analyze the existence of elements of plurality, both in the domestic substantive law and in the systems of private international law of the abovementioned jurisdictions. The authors conclude that those elements are far from being enough to address the challenges arising from the presence of Muslim minorities in Western European, particularly against the current background of economic crisis.

Click here for the whole text.