EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0812
Case T-812/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014 — BPC Lux 2 a.o. v Commission
Case T-812/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014 — BPC Lux 2 a.o. v Commission
Case T-812/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014 — BPC Lux 2 a.o. v Commission
OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 60–61
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/60 |
Action brought on 12 December 2014 — BPC Lux 2 a.o. v Commission
(Case T-812/14)
(2015/C 046/78)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), BPC UKI LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), Bennett Offshore Restructuring Fund, Inc. (George Town, Cayman Islands), Bennett Restructuring Fund LP (Wilmington, United States), Queen Street Fund Ltd (George Town, Cayman Islands), BTG Pactual Global Emerging Markets and Macro Master Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), BTG Pactual Absolute Return II Master Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), CSS LLC (Chicago, United States), Beltway Strategic Opportunities Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), EJF Debt Opportunities Master Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), EJF DO Fund (Cayman) LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), TP Lux HoldCo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), VR Global Partners LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), Absalon II Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), CenturyLink, Inc. Defined Benefit Master Trust (Denver, United States), City of New York Group Trust (New York, United States), Dignity Health (San Francisco, United States), GoldenTree Asset Management Lux Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), GoldenTree High Yield Value Fund Offshore 110 Two Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (San Bernardino, United States) (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors and P. Fajardo, lawyer)
Defendants: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 3 August 2014 not to raise objections to a measure notified by Portugal for the restructuring of Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (BES), in the procedure SA.39250; and |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicants. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, fact and procedure in manifestly failing to correctly assess the counterfactual, in particular regarding the availability of private capital to participate in the restructuring of BES.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicants’ procedural rights in failing to open the formal investigation procedure.
|