Snippet series

What is the impact on the double Luxco and the Luxembourg share pledges?

Luxembourg bolsters its position for the structurings of international investments with the introduction of new tools for bankruptcy prevention. The existing and new financial collateral arrangements maintain their bankruptcy insolvency proceedings remote status, preserving the benefit and popularity of the double Luxco structure and the related enforcement of Luxembourg share security.

The effects of Brexit have had seismic consequences for all aspects of law, not just in the UK but in Europe more widely. This month we hear from four Loyens & Loeff team members specialising in insolvency and restructuring matters, who take a look at the corporate insolvency fallout for Luxembourg specifically. How have Schemes and restructuring plans been impacted by the UK’s exit from the EU, and what has it meant for enforceability of judgements?

This article deals with the insolvency concept of the center of main interests (COMI) under the European Union insolvency legislation, in particular Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (the Insolvency Regulation or the Regulation).

Pursuant to the Insolvency Regulation COMI is one of the central unified and autonomous concepts¹ of the insolvent debtor, i.e. it is an insolvency concept and not a corporate law or tax concept.

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 ordinary business circumstances, the directors/managers of a Luxembourg company have a duty to file for bankruptcy within one month of the meeting of the two criteria for bankruptcy (under threat of criminal sanction) – this is the so called “Insolvency Filing Obligation”. The two parts of the test for bankruptcy are: (i) cessation of payments (or so called missed creditor payment) and (ii) loss of creditworthiness.

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.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

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.