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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.