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.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.

Compensation to be paid to a bankruptcy estate professional is many times subject to intense dispute. In the case of a bankruptcy trustee, section 326 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for a tiered system of compensation based upon the amount of money distributed by the trustee to parties in interest. However, as demonstrated by the recent decision in In re Virgin Offshore U.S.A., Inc., 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 233 (Bankr. E.D. La. Jan.

On January 7, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that may have far reaching effects on cases involving asbestos liability.  Companies with potential asbestos liability, and actual and potential asbestos claimants, would be well advised to consider the Court’s opinion.

Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.

On October 21, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals (the Appeals Court), New York’s highest appellate court, addressed two appeals, and then issued an important ruling regarding the parameters of the affirmative defense of in pari delicto in suits against outside auditors, holding that the doctrines of in pari delicto and imputation are a complete bar to recovery when the corporate wrongdoer’s actions are imputed to the company.

The Doctrines of In Pari Delicto and Imputation