Powell Duffryn PLC v. Wolfgang Petereit
European Union Court of Justice
Case C-214/89, 10 March 1992 (1992)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Powell Duffryn PLC (Powell) (defendant), an English corporation, held shares in IBH-Holding AG (IBH), a German company limited by shares. In a meeting of IBH shareholders that Powell attended, the IBH shareholders approved a plan to increase IBH’s capitalization. As part of that meeting, the shareholders also approved a provision to submit all shareholder actions against IBH in the jurisdiction ordinarily competent to handle suits against the corporation—typically the company’s principal place of business (Germany). After the shareholder meeting, Powell agreed to capitalize IBH further and acquired additional shares. A year later, IBH was placed in liquidation, with Wolfgang Petereit (plaintiff) acting as the liquidator. Petereit sued Powell in Germany for failing to make payments toward IBH’s increased capitalization and for receiving dividends while IBH was falling into insolvency. Powell challenged Germany’s jurisdiction over it, but the trial court rejected the challenge. Powell appealed, and the appellate court sought the input of the European Union Court of Justice on whether IBH’s bylaw on jurisdiction was consistent with Article 17 of the Brussels Convention (the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the 1978 Accession Convention).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
