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.
Table of contents
Bankruptcy .............................................................................. 2
Controlled management .......................................................... 2
Moratorium or suspension of payments .................................. 3
Company voluntary arrangement ............................................ 3
Involuntary liquidation.............................................................. 3
Contacts .................................................................................. 4
The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.
Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.
Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.
HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.
A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.
Ashfords successfully acted for the Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Vincent Mascarenhas (deceased) in their application to discharge Freezing Orders, an Interim Charging Order and an Interim Third Party Debt Order obtained by creditors of the late Bankrupt in 2014. The Joint Trustees were not a party to the original proceedings but had standing to make the applications.