The Athens Court of Appeals issued its decision no. 5175/2021, which dismissed as indefinite the claim of a credit institution - the opposing party against our client for the payment/return of 29,751,632 Japanese Yen or the equivalent amount in Euros under a credit agreement. In the above dispute, English substantive law was applied, on the one hand, due to the express provision in the framework agreement, and Greek procedural law, on the other hand, since procedural issues are governed by the law of the judge hearing the case. In particular, the action brought by the opposing credit institution was dismissed on the following grounds: 'The action in question, as set out, is {...} indefinite (qualitative vagueness) as regards the element of establishing the active legal capacity of the plaintiff company as the universal successor to the banking company with the name {...} following a merger by absorption, {....} since it only contains the number of the relevant F.E.K. in which the notice of the merger approval was published in the Official Gazette, without the details of the notarial deed of merger by absorption of the above-mentioned banking company by the applicant, namely the number of the notarial deed and the full name of the notary, being included neither in the statement of claim nor in the submissions made by the applicant before the court of first instance' (CP 1229/2018, CP 1324/2008 TNP NOMOS)'. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the appellate court would be called upon to address the issue of the limitation period in English law, given that the limitation period for loan/stock repayment claims is - in English law - in principle six years, as well as serious evidentiary issues regarding the disbursement of the loan itself, given that, inter alia, there was no explicit procedural agreement in the framework agreement on the evidentiary value of the extracts from the commercial books of the credit institution.