The banking regulation Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of the rules governing the banking sector in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on recovery, resolution and liquidation.

What options are available where banks are failing in your jurisdiction?

As the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to develop, unprecedented issues are affecting the private equity industry. We have identified certain challenges both on a fund and portfolio company level, and measures that will be implemented by the Dutch government that can help you and your portfolio companies to survive the COVID-19 crisis.

Would you like to view the most important topics, measures and tips we have selected and our dedicated private equity team? Read the pdf-file below.

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.

Introductory remarks

The coronavirus (COVID-19) is currently causing concern and uncertainty and poses challenges to companies and individuals alike. A number of legal issues are also emerging, whether in relation to contractual obligations, labour law matters or corporate law aspects. This article aims to highlight the most important points from a Swiss law perspective and to clarify legal issues in the elaboration of possible courses of action.

1. Commercial contracts

1.1 Force majeure

Certain governments have taken (extensive) measures to help businesses and its employees. This leads to an entire new and unprecedented market situation and results in sometimes unprecedented legal issues which require swift but thorough assessment, both from a national and cross-border perspective. To provide companies and its directors with some general guidelines in these times of uncertainty, our international Restructuring and Insolvency team has prepared an overview of certain pressing legal issues.

A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).

Right to carry out profit-making activities without limitation

Under the regime provided for by the Belgian law of 27 June 1921 (the Law of 1921), INPAs are prohibited from carrying out industrial or commercial operations unless the latter remain ancillary to their non-profit activities.

A creditor’s “later-in-time reclamation demand is ‘subject to’ [a lender’s] prior rights as a secured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020. In re HHGregg, Inc., 2020 WL 628268 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). And “[w]hen a lender insists on collateral, it expects the collateral to be worth something,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020, when rejecting a guarantor’s “novel reading” of his security agreement. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 2020 WL 628542 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020).

Lender repossesses the equipment of its business borrower after it defaults on its secured loan agreement. Because borrower needs the equipment to run its business, it then files a Chapter 11 petition and promptly asks lender to return the equipment. Lender refuses because the equipment secures the defaulted loan. Depending on where the debtor sought bankruptcy relief (e.g., New York or New Jersey), lender may be subject to sanctions for holding on to the equipment. 

A bankruptcy trustee may sell “avoidance powers to a self-interested party that will abandon those claims, so long as the overall value obtained for the transfer is appropriate,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 15, 2020. Silverman v. Birdsell, 2020 WL 236777, *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).