Print Page  |  Close Window

Sensata Technologies Holding N.V.'s SEC Filings

S-1/A
SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING PLC filed this Form S-1/A on 03/09/2010
Entire Document
 


Table of Contents

ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITIES

 

We are incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, and a substantial portion of our assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, although we have appointed an agent for service of process in the U.S., it may be difficult or impossible for United States investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us or to realize in the United States on any judgment against us including for civil liabilities under the United States securities laws. Therefore, any judgment obtained in any United States federal or state court against us may have to be enforced in the courts of the Netherlands, or such other foreign jurisdiction, as applicable. Investors should not assume that the courts of the Netherlands, or such foreign jurisdiction would enforce judgments of United States courts obtained against us predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the United States securities laws or that such courts would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us predicated solely upon such laws. Dutch law, furthermore, does not recognize a shareholder’s right to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company.

 

We have appointed CT Corporation, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York, as our agent for service of process in any suit, action or proceedings with respect to actions under United States federal or state securities laws brought in any United States federal or state court located in The City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, and we will submit to such jurisdiction.

 

The United States and the Netherlands do not currently have a treaty providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters. Therefore, a final judgment for the payment of money rendered by any federal or state court in the United States based on civil liability, whether or not predicated solely upon United States federal securities laws, would not be automatically enforceable in the Netherlands and new proceedings on the merits must be initiated before a Dutch court. In order to obtain a judgment which is enforceable in the Netherlands the claim must be relitigated before a competent Dutch court in accordance with section 431 of the Dutch Code on Civil Procedure. If the party in whose favor such final judgment is rendered brings a new suit in a competent court in the Netherlands such party may submit to a Dutch court the final judgment that has been rendered in the United States and such court will have discretion to attach such weight to that judgment as it deems appropriate. A Dutch court will, under current practice, generally grant the same judgment without a de novo analysis on the merits (i) if that judgment results from legal proceedings compatible with Dutch notions of due process, (ii) if that judgment does not contravene public policy (openbare orde) of the Netherlands and (iii) if the jurisdiction of the United States has been based on internationally accepted principles of private international law. To date, we are aware of only one case in which a Dutch court has considered whether such a foreign judgment would be enforced in the Netherlands. In that case, a U.S. court entered a default judgment against the defendant, a Netherlands resident, in a lawsuit involving a breach of contact claim. The defendant sought to relitigate the claim in the Netherlands. The Dutch lower court ruled that the criteria discussed above were satisfied with respect to the U.S. judgment, as a result of which the Dutch court granted the same judgment without a review of the merits of the underlying claim. Investors should not assume, however, that the courts of the Netherlands, or such other foreign jurisdictions, would enforce judgments of United States courts obtained against us predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the United States securities laws or that such courts would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us predicated solely upon such laws.

 

Additionally, there may be doubt as to the enforceability, in original actions in Dutch courts, of liabilities based solely upon the federal securities laws of the United States. Finally, under the rules of Dutch private international law (and those of the EC Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I) of 17 June 2008, or the “Rome I Regulation”), in applying the laws of another jurisdiction the Dutch courts may (i) give effect to the overriding mandatory rules irrespective of the law otherwise applicable thereto, (ii) give effect to the overriding mandatory rules of the law of the country where any of the obligations arising out of an agreement have to be or have been performed, insofar as those rules render the performance of the agreement unlawful and (iii) refuse the application of a term or condition of an Agreement or a rule of foreign law applicable thereto under the Rome I Regulation, if that application is manifestly incompatible with Dutch public policy.

 

157