Rule 311 – Insolvency of a party

1. If a party is declared insolvent under the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings the Court shall stay the proceedings up to three months. They may be stayed until the competent national authority or person dealing with the insolvency has decided whether to continue the proceedings or not. Where the competent national authority or person dealing with the insolvency decides not to continue the proceedings, the Court may decide, upon a reasoned request by the other party, that the proceedings should be continued in accordance with the applicable national insolvency law.

2. Proceedings may also be stayed at the request of a temporary administrator who has been appointed before a party is declared insolvent.

3. The claimant may withdraw the action against an insolvent defendant in accordance with Rule 265 and a defendant may withdraw a Counterclaim against an insolvent claimant. Such withdrawal shall not prejudice the action against other parties.

4. If proceedings are continued, the effect of a decision of the Court as regards the insolvent party in the action shall be determined by the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings.

Case Law:

IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, Nanostring v 10x Genomics
Stay of proceedings because of insolvency not justified (Article 41(3) UPCA, Rule 311(1) RoP). Party is declared insolvent only after the conclusion of the oral proceedings and the legal dispute is ready for decision. At this stage of the proceedings, the parties have already taken all procedural steps and all costs have already been incurred by the parties. If the decision or order affects the bankruptcy estate, it does not differ from the effect that a decision or order issued before the declaration of bankruptcy would have had. Furthermore, the interest in a timely order weighs particularly heavily in proceedings for interim relief, as is the case here. Furthermore, it leads to a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties if events that only occurred after the conclusion of the oral hearing are no longer to be taken into account in the decision-making process. Confirmed by comparable provisions in the national civil procedural law of several contracting member states of the Convention. 

IPPT20240117, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Ex officio order judge-rapporteur to extend deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim for revocation and to reunite the claim and counterclaim workflows (Rule 9(3 RoP, Rule 311(1) RoP, Rule 334(a) RoP). Defence to the counterclaim for revocation not filed together with Reply to defence in the claim as required by Rule 29(a) RoP. The apparent misunderstanding of the relevant deadline [for Statement of defence to counterclaim for revocation] by Plant-e Knowledge will in this situation not be held against her; the consequences would be disproportionate.