Domestic Procedures

In this article, partner Bertrand Géradin and managing associate David Al Mari from Ogier’s Restructuring and Insolvency team in Luxembourg provide a high level summary of the enforcement mechanisms related to share pledges in Luxembourg. This article first appeared in Chambers Expert Focus Guides.

Usual Luxembourg security package

Luxembourg is one of the leading domiciles worldwide for international investment portfolio acquisition vehicles.

Acquisition financing are usually secured against the assets and cash flows of the target company as well as of the buyout vehicle.

In practice, given that a Luxembourg holding company generally does not have any operational activities, shares, receivables and cash on bank are the most important assets to cover.

Background

Luxembourg went into full Coronavirus lockdown on March 16. By the ministerial decree of 16 March 2020, the State narrowed down the movement of citizens to the essential activities (notably the procurement of food, medication and basic necessities and travel to health facilities) and has ordered to limit business activities and allow people to stay at home. For workers engaged in other (non) commercial activities, the state recommends using home office and reducing activities to tasks that are essential for the operation of the business.

In light of the COVID-19 crisis, a Grand Ducal Regulation was published on 25 March 2020 (the Regulation)[1] that suspends certain procedural deadlines applicable in civil and commercial matters during the Luxembourg state of crisis. The Ministry of Justice has clarified that this suspension also relates to insolvency matters.

The recent successful appeal in Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another [2016] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) has clarified and highlighted the complexities of bringing a wrongful trading claim and the importance of correctly quantifying losses for which directors can be made personally liable under section 214 and/or 246Z of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”).

The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.

Background

Unless you have been hiding in an igloo in Antarctica for the last year you could not possibly have missed the media furore over the huge pension liabilities of eminent companies that have become insolvent. BHS, a venerable British retailer, is the most high profile after recently entering administration with an estimated pensions deficit of £571m.

The interest rate mis-selling scandal took another twist recently when a landmark legal case was dismissed by the High Court. Had the case been successful it would have challenged the banks’ £2.1bn compensation scheme set-up to settle inappropriate interest rate swaps – however the decision only brings temporary relief for the banks.

Background

During the previous UK government’s tenure, in March 2015 a call for evidence was launched to understand better the employee consultation process when an employer faces insolvency, restructure or other form of company rescue (Call for Evidence on Collective Redundancy Consultation for Employers facing Insolvency).

The call for evidence sought views on the following areas: