Main Details: Registry number APL_33746/2024 Date 16 September, 2024 Parties ICPillar LLC v. SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited Order/Decision reference ORD_50692/2024 Type of action Appeal RoP220.2 Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English Headnotes: - The Court of Appeal shall of its own motion consider how to exercise its discretion under R.222.2 RoP. The Court of Appeal may therefore decide to disregard late filed requests, facts, and evidence even if these were not objected to by the other party. - From R.172.1 RoP it clearly follows that there is a duty to provide evidence that is already available to a party. - The Court has a discretionary power to request the production of evidence pursuant to R.172.2 RoP. It is not obliged to do so. - A bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the US does not provide adequate security, as R.158 RoP requires. As the reason for not allowing a bank guarantee to be issued by a US licensed bank is not solely based on nationality, but on substantive grounds, this is not contrary to any prohibition of discrimination. English Keywords: security for costs, duty to provide evidence, adequate security under R.158, Scope of appeal proceedings, bank guarantee Back to Decisions and Orders
Main Details: Registry number APL_33746/2024 Date 16 September, 2024 Parties ICPillar LLC v. SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited Order/Decision reference ORD_50692/2024 Type of action Appeal RoP220.2 Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English Headnotes: - The Court of Appeal shall of its own motion consider how to exercise its discretion under R.222.2 RoP. The Court of Appeal may therefore decide to disregard late filed requests, facts, and evidence even if these were not objected to by the other party. - From R.172.1 RoP it clearly follows that there is a duty to provide evidence that is already available to a party. - The Court has a discretionary power to request the production of evidence pursuant to R.172.2 RoP. It is not obliged to do so. - A bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the US does not provide adequate security, as R.158 RoP requires. As the reason for not allowing a bank guarantee to be issued by a US licensed bank is not solely based on nationality, but on substantive grounds, this is not contrary to any prohibition of discrimination. English Keywords: security for costs, duty to provide evidence, adequate security under R.158, Scope of appeal proceedings, bank guarantee Back to Decisions and Orders