Atjaunināt sīkdatņu piekrišanu

E-grāmata: Cross Border Study of Freezing Orders and Provisional Measures: Does Mareva Rule the Waves?

,
  • Formāts: PDF+DRM
  • Sērija : SpringerBriefs in Law
  • Izdošanas datums: 16-Jun-2018
  • Izdevniecība: Springer International Publishing AG
  • Valoda: eng
  • ISBN-13: 9783319943497
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
  • Formāts - PDF+DRM
  • Cena: 59,47 €*
  • * ši ir gala cena, t.i., netiek piemērotas nekādas papildus atlaides
  • Ielikt grozā
  • Pievienot vēlmju sarakstam
  • Šī e-grāmata paredzēta tikai personīgai lietošanai. E-grāmatas nav iespējams atgriezt un nauda par iegādātajām e-grāmatām netiek atmaksāta.
Cross Border Study of Freezing Orders and Provisional Measures: Does Mareva Rule the Waves?Palielināt
  • Formāts: PDF+DRM
  • Sērija : SpringerBriefs in Law
  • Izdošanas datums: 16-Jun-2018
  • Izdevniecība: Springer International Publishing AG
  • Valoda: eng
  • ISBN-13: 9783319943497
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:

DRM restrictions

  • Kopēšana (kopēt/ievietot):

    nav atļauts

  • Drukāšana:

    nav atļauts

  • Lietošana:

    Digitālo tiesību pārvaldība (Digital Rights Management (DRM))
    Izdevējs ir piegādājis šo grāmatu šifrētā veidā, kas nozīmē, ka jums ir jāinstalē bezmaksas programmatūra, lai to atbloķētu un lasītu. Lai lasītu šo e-grāmatu, jums ir jāizveido Adobe ID. Vairāk informācijas šeit. E-grāmatu var lasīt un lejupielādēt līdz 6 ierīcēm (vienam lietotājam ar vienu un to pašu Adobe ID).

    Nepieciešamā programmatūra
    Lai lasītu šo e-grāmatu mobilajā ierīcē (tālrunī vai planšetdatorā), jums būs jāinstalē šī bezmaksas lietotne: PocketBook Reader (iOS / Android)

    Lai lejupielādētu un lasītu šo e-grāmatu datorā vai Mac datorā, jums ir nepieciešamid Adobe Digital Editions (šī ir bezmaksas lietotne, kas īpaši izstrādāta e-grāmatām. Tā nav tas pats, kas Adobe Reader, kas, iespējams, jau ir jūsu datorā.)

    Jūs nevarat lasīt šo e-grāmatu, izmantojot Amazon Kindle.

This book compares the law on provisional measures of common law and civil law countries, the goal being to identify and compare their main advantages and disadvantages. The guiding concept is a well-known statement by the Justices of the US Supreme Court expressed in the famous Grupo Mexicano case, according to which the “age of slow-moving capital and comparatively immobile wealth” has now passed, and the 21st century requires a fresh look at the law of provisional measures. 
In the quest to find a model for interim relief, the Mareva Injunction, subsequently renamed the ‘Freezing Order’ in the English Civil Procedural Rules, is used as the benchmark to which each of the targeted systems discussed here is compared. This is because international scholarship, as well as e.g. the US Supreme Court, generally consider the Mareva Injunction to be the most effective and farthest-reaching provisional remedy.  
The analysis suggests that the Mareva Injunction / Freezing Order represents the type of relief that will most likely continue to dominate as the most efficient and farthest-reaching interim measure in the years to come.

1 Introduction
1(6)
1.1 The Problem Stated and the Roadmap to the Monograph
1(1)
1.2 Terminology Caveats
2(5)
References
5(2)
2 Provisional Measures in France and the United Kingdom
7(36)
2.1 Background
7(1)
2.2 Definitions: The French Saisie Conservatoire
8(2)
2.2.1 Saisie Conservatoire in Comparison to the Refere
9(1)
2.3 Definitions: The English Mareva Injunction or Freezing Order
10(2)
2.4 The Basic Problem: Locating a Debtor's Assets and Preventing Their Removal
12(1)
2.5 The Mareva Injunction or Freezing Order
13(5)
2.5.1 Historical Origins of the Freezing Order or Mareva Injunction
13(2)
2.5.2 The Key Characteristics of the Mareva Injunction
15(1)
2.5.3 Expansion of the Scope of Mareva Injunctions and Freezing Orders
16(2)
2.6 The Saisie Conservatoire
18(3)
2.6.1 A Brief Legislative History of the Saisie Conservatoire
18(1)
2.6.2 The Key Characteristics of the Saisie Conservatoire
19(2)
2.7 The Procedure for Obtaining a Saisie Conservatoire and Mareva Injunction Freezing Order
21(4)
2.7.1 The Procedure for Obtaining the Saisie Conservatoire
21(2)
2.7.2 The Procedure for Obtaining a Mareva Injunction or Freezing Order
23(2)
2.8 On the Role of Contempt of Court Rules
25(3)
2.9 A Comparison of the Saisie Conservatoire and the Freezing Order Mareva Injunction as Remedies for a Creditor Seeking to Enforce a Claim
28(2)
2.9.1 Speed, Simplicity and Cost
28(1)
2.9.2 The Consequences of Obtaining a Saisie Conservatoire and Freezing Order and the Effect of the Order
28(1)
2.9.3 Counter Security or Undertakings in Damages
29(1)
2.9.4 Ancillary Orders Which Can Be Granted by the Courts to Assist Enforcement of Provisional Measures
29(1)
2.10 Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforceability of Freezing Orders in EU Member States--Potential Conflicts and Uncertainties
30(6)
2.10.1 General Considerations
30(1)
2.10.2 Jurisdiction-Related Issues
31(2)
2.10.3 Recognition and Enforcement of Mareva Injunction Freezing Order by Member States of the European Union
33(1)
2.10.4 Worldwide Freezing Orders Before French Courts and the European Court of Justice
33(3)
2.11 Conclusions
36(7)
References
39(4)
3 Provisional Measures in the United States
43(22)
3.1 A Brief History of US Law on Provisional Measures
44(3)
3.2 Synopsys of US Law on Provisional Measures
47(8)
3.2.1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
47(4)
3.2.2 State Law Variations
51(1)
3.2.3 Constitutional Due Process Limitations Common to Prejudgment Remedies
52(1)
3.2.4 The Uniform Asset-Protection Orders Act 2012
53(2)
3.3 Mareva Injunctions and the US System of Provisional Measures: Differences and Commonalities
55(6)
3.3.1 The American Provisional Measures v. the English Mareva Injunction: The Main Inherent Limitations of the American System
55(2)
3.3.2 The American Provisional Measures v. the English Mareva Injunction: Policy and Practical Differences
57(2)
3.3.3 The Tokens of Efficiency of the American System
59(2)
3.4 Positioning US Law
61(4)
References
62(3)
4 Post-socialist Jurisdictions: Provisional Measures in Hungary
65(18)
4.1 The Limits of Research: On the Hungarian Legal System and Scholarship
66(2)
4.2 An Overview of the History of Provisional Measures in Hungary in Modern Times (1867--Present Time)
68(2)
4.3 Present Time Statutory Law
70(2)
4.3.1 A Terminology Caveat
70(1)
4.3.2 The Main Features of the Law on Provisional Measures
71(1)
4.4 What Contemporary Hungarian Court Cases Can Tell Us About Ex Parte and Other Provisional Measures
72(6)
4.4.1 Case Law as a Source for Analysis: Limitations and Key Features
72(1)
4.4.2 Why a Mareva Injunction-Type Ex Parte Provisional Measure Is Needed in Hungary?
73(2)
4.4.3 What Are Non-Ex Parte Provisional Measures Used for in Hungary?
75(3)
4.5 Contempt of Court Rules in Hungary
78(1)
4.6 Positioning Hungarian Law on the European and Global Landscape
79(4)
References
80(3)
5 The European Account Preservation Order: Nuclear Weapon or Paper Tiger?
83(4)
References
86(1)
6 Conclusions and Possible Ways Forward
87
Biežāk uzdotie jautājumi par e-grāmatām Biežāk uzdotie jautājumi par e-grāmatām
Permanent link: https://www.kriso.lv/db/97833199434972e.html
Keywords: