Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

As lawyers and bondholders wait to see if there has been a settlement between Argentina and holders of its defaulted bonds, Mary Gibbons examines the most recent proceedings

Part 1 – 'Last stand at the OK Corral?', CLJ56

Part 2 – 'Still standing', CLJ57

The widely reported and long-running litigation between the Republic of Argentina and various hedge funds, arising out of the default by Argentina of debts due to the funds, and for which the funds seek payment of 100% at face value, continued throughout 2015. NML Capital Ltd and EM Ltd are estimated to hold over US$2bn in judgments against Argentina stemming from Argentina’s default on its sovereign debt in December 2001. These judgments have not been satisfied and the funds have sought recovery through various avenues, including bringing claims against the Central Bank of Argentina in the New York courts in two related actions.

Ivan Shiu and Giles Hutt analyse the application of EU jurisdiction rules and the judgment in Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA

In the vast majority of commercial disputes, the starting point for considering jurisdiction questions is the Recast Brussels Regulation (EU 1215/2012) (the Regulation), which sets out detailed and somewhat rigid rules that courts in all EU member states must follow. (Denmark is theoretically excluded from the scope of the Regulation, but has agreed to ‘opt in’ by means of a separate agreement with the European Community (EC) – see OJ L 79/4.)

Gwendoline Davies explains without prejudice privilege and highlights traps and tips for parties to any dispute or negotiation

If a communication between negotiating parties has without prejudice privilege, it will not be admissible in court and therefore cannot be adduced as evidence against the interest of the party that made it. The rationale behind this form of legal privilege is that it is in the public interest that disputing parties should be able to negotiate freely, without fear of future prejudice in court, with a view to settling their disputes wherever possible.

Mark Lewis and Clare Arthurs report on the proposed changes to costs management

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) has been busy. Among other things, it has proposed amending the costs management provisions in Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.12 and 13, Precedent H, and substantially adding to the Precedent H guidance notes in Practice Direction (PD) 3E. Let’s get the caveats out of the way first: there is no set date for these proposed amendments to come into force, although it is possible that they will form part of the 83rd Update to the CPR in April 2016.

Anna Pertoldi and Maura McIntosh look back at some of the key developments of 2015 from the perspective of the commercial litigator in England and Wales

As we move into a new year, this article examines some of the significant legal decisions during 2015.

Dov Ohrenstein investigates a recent case of implied terms

The decision of the Supreme Court in Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Ltd [2015] should be of interest to anyone considering the question of how and when a court will imply terms into contracts.

Martin Meredith provides a timely reminder on the signature of statements of truth

The recent High Court decision of Bao Xiang International Garment Centre v British Airways plc [2015] (Bao Xiang) serves as a pertinent reminder for lawyers of the importance associated with signing statements of truth, the need to ensure that there is authority from the client(s) to bring a claim, the appropriate procedure to apply when proceedings must be issued without authority, and the significance of legal conduct so as to avoid any suggestion of an abuse of process.

Sandi Simons and Melanie Hart consider a recent judgment on commercial agency

A decision by the High Court in November 2015 has provided welcome clarification for businesses that use commercial agents to buy or sell their goods as to the ‘compensation’ which their agents are entitled to after termination of the agency contract.