Introduction
Preventive measures
Out-of-court reorganisation
In-court reorganisation
Modernisation of bankruptcy
On 19 July 2023, the Luxembourg parliament passed bill no. 6539A on business preservation and modernisation of bankruptcy law, which aims to modernise Luxembourg’s insolvency laws, implementing EU Directive 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks (the 'Business Preservation and Insolvency Modernisation Act' or 'BPIM Act').
The Act of 17 December 2021 has extended the transitional measures provided for by the Act of 23 September 2020 until 31 December 2022. In practice, Luxembourg-based companies can hold either virtual board and shareholder meetings, even if their articles of association provide otherwise, or physical meetings if they respect the applicable sanitary conditions.
The Act of 30 June 2021 has extended the possibility for Luxembourg-based companies to hold virtual board and shareholder meetings until 31 December 2021.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.
Table of contents
Bankruptcy .............................................................................. 2
Controlled management .......................................................... 2
Moratorium or suspension of payments .................................. 3
Company voluntary arrangement ............................................ 3
Involuntary liquidation.............................................................. 3
Contacts .................................................................................. 4
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.