← All Authorities
United Kingdom contract rome isyndicated lendingforeign judgments common law

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA

[2018] UKSC 34
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2018
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Resolution of a Portuguese bank did not transfer English-law governed derivatives liabilities to the bridge bank where the transfer instrument expressly excluded such liabilities.

Key Principle

State succession to liabilities: the Supreme Court held that the resolution of a Portuguese bank did not transfer liability for English-law governed derivatives to the bridge bank where the transfer instrument excluded such liabilities.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Goldman Sachs International v ...