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.

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.

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

A bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent a debtor’s creditors from bringing state-law fraudulent conveyance actions that challenge a leveraged buyout of the debtor. Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), No. 10-4609 (REG), --- B.R. ----, 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).

TheLehman Brothers bankruptcy court has determined that the contractually specified methodology for conducting the liquidation of a swap agreement is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the bankruptcy, even if the selected methodology would be more favorable to the non-defaulting counterparty than the liquidation methodology that would apply absent the bankruptcy.See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, ---B.R.

A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).

On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding¹ holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.

Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc¹ case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.