Finding Nemo: Locating Financial Losses after Kolassa/Barclays Bank and Profit
A publication on the location of financial losses and the validity of jurisdiction clauses after the CJEU’s Kolassa v Barclays Bank and Profit Investment v Ossi judgments.
- Prof.Dr. M. Haentjens and D.J. Verheij LL.M.
- 01 September 2016
This publication concerns the private international law aspects of prospectus liability under the regimes of the Recast Brussels I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation. More specifically, it deals with recent case law of the CJEU on the location of financial losses and on the validity of jurisdiction clauses in cases concerning prospectus liability. This contribution critically analyses the CJEU’s Kronhofer v Maier, Kolassa v Barclays Bank and Profit Investment v Ossi judgments as well as the Advocate-General’s conclusion in Universal Music International Holding BV. The authors argue that jurisdiction clauses in a prospectus must be upheld. In addition, with regard to the location of financial losses in prospectus liability cases, they propose a radical new approach to the determination both of the place where the event happened which gave rise to the damage (Handlungsort) and of the place where the damage materialised (Erfolgsort).
This contribution has been published in the Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation (June 2016). The full text article can also be found on SSRN. In addition, a blog has been posted on the Oxford Business Law Blog (16 August 2016).