In a decision delivered on 7 June 2024 (2024TALCH02/00950) (the Decision), the Luxembourg District Court provided for substantive clarifications regarding article 10 of the Luxembourg Law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and modernisation of insolvency law (the Restructuring Law). This article empowers the Court to appoint judicial agents (mandataires de justice) in case of serious and aggravated misconduct (manquements graves et caractérisés) by the debtor or its corporate bodies, threatening the continuity of the business.

Following the entry into force of the law of 7 August 2023 (the New Insolvency Law), the Luxembourg district court sitting in commercial matters (the Court) issued on 22 November 2023 the first decision opening judicial reorganisation proceedings (JRP) (Numéro du rôle: TALCH02/01416).

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 long-awaited new Luxembourg law on business preservation and modernisation of bankruptcy law voted by the Luxembourg Parliament on 19 July 2023 (the Law) implementing EU Directive 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 contains a range of new preventive reorganisation procedures, notably (i) conservatory measures (appointment of a conciliator), (ii) an out-of-court reorganization procedure by mutual agreement (réorganisation par accord amiable) and (iii) judicial reorganisation proceedings (JRP).

This question is of particular importance considering further that the provisions of the Luxembourg Commercial Code may seem confusing when read literally and in isolation as to whether the period commences from the date of cessation of payments (cessation des paiements) alone, or the date of both the cessation of payments (cessation des paiements) and loss of creditworthiness (ébranlement du crédit) (i.e., the cumulative criteria for bankruptcy).

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

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.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.