Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 November 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] EWHC 3199 (Ch)
Docket NumberNo. 20916 of 2009
CourtChancery Division
Date26 November 2009

In the Matter of

Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) Ii Sca

[2009] EWHC 3199 (Ch)

Before: Mr. Justice Lewison

No. 20916 of 2009



MR. W. TROWER QC and MR. M. ARNOLD (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte) appeared on behalf of the Company and its Directors.

MR. R. SHELDON QC and MISS H. STONEFROST (instructed by Slaughter and May) appeared on behalf of the Administrators.

MS. L. FRAZER (instructed by Linklaters) appeared on behalf of the Senior Secured Noteholders.

(As approved by the Judge)


This is an administration application in relation to a company called Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA. The application is made by the company and by its directors on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts and that administration will produce a better result for creditors than a winding up. I must be satisfied that I have jurisdiction to make the order sought. That falls into two parts. The first is whether Hellas II (as I shall call it) is a company at all within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986. The second is whether it has its centre of main interests, or COMI, in England.


The evidence is that Hellas II is incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg. It is now a S ociété en Commandite par Actions which is, according to the evidence, a combination of a joint stock company and a limited partnership. It has a separate legal personality. It has a constitution and it has shareholders.


In those circumstances I consider that it does fall within the definition of company for the purposes of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act; and that therefore that jurisdictional hurdle is overcome. As mentioned, the company is incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg and consequently under the EC regulation there is a presumption that that is where its centre of main interests or COMI lies. That presumption can be rebutted; but in order to rebut the presumption there must be clear objective and ascertainable facts which rebut it. It is also the case as one might expect in a system of law which encourages a single market across the whole of the European Union that it is possible for an entity, whether a corporate entity or an individual, to change its COMI from its original or presumed location.


In the present case it is said that the company's COMI was changed from Luxembourg to England in the middle of August this year. I have to consider the position as at today's date. That is to say some three months on. The objective and ascertainable facts on which the company relies in support of its contention that it has shifted its COMI are that its head office and principal operating address is now in London, albeit that the premises it occupies are relatively modest since the company is no more than a financing and shareholding vehicle. The company's creditors were notified of its change of address around that time and an announcement was made by way of a press release that its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and Others v Yuri Privalov and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 3 October 2014
  • Videology Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 16 August 2018 open insolvency proceedings. 51 Evidence of such matters has been taken into account in cases in the UK: see e.g. re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA [2010] BCC 295 and re European Directories (DH6) BV [2012] BCC 46. It is, however, clear that it may be significant whether ......
  • Re D (Pa)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 January 2012
    ...2005 1 WLR 3966 2005 BCC 949 2006 2 BCLC 9 2006 ILPR 12 EEC REG 1346/2000 RECITAL 13 HELLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS (LUXEMBOURG) II SCA, IN RE 2010 BCC 295 2009 EWHC 3199 (CH) BANKRUPTCY LAW Jurisdiction Non-vesting proposal - Amendment of proposal to vesting arrangement - Assignment of property......
  • Barings (UK) Ltd v Galapagos S.A.
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 30 June 2022
    ...promulgating a restructuring in this jurisdiction. This has been done on many occasions: Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA [2010] BCC 295, Re European Directories (DH6) BV [2012] BCC 46, Re Magyar Telecom BV [2013] EWHC 2295 (Ch), Re Zlomrex International Finance SA [2014] B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • It's Better Than Nothing
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 9 March 2011
    ...majority creditor, because it would save jobs and minimise disruption to clients. In Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA [2009] EWHC 3199 (Ch); [2010] BCC 295 the court, for the first time, supported a pre-pack sale: the judge ruled that the company was clearly insolvent and th......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT