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.

The High Court has, for the first time since the introduction of the legislation in June 2020, refused to sanction a cross-class cram-down restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act. In In the matter of Hurricane Energy Plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), the court rejected a plan supported by bondholders because it had not been shown that the opposing shareholders had no better alternative prospects (i.e., the ‘no worse off condition’ had not been met).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.

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.

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

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.