On 11 June 2013, the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies voted in favour of a law introducing a right to claim back "intangible" and non-fungible movable assets from a bankrupt company (the parliamentary file can be downloaded

Introduction
Facts
Decision
Comment


Introduction

Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State 13 februari 2013, LJN: BZ1261

In haar uitspraak van 13 februari 2013 heeft de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (de "Afdeling") uitleg gegeven over de positie van een curator bij naleving van de voor een inrichting geldende milieuwetgeving.

The highly anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Indalex was released this morning.

Here are the key highlights:

Background
Facts
Decision
Comment

On July 6, 2012, in Lightsquared LP (Re),¹ the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Court"), released reasons that clarify the criteria for the identification of the centre of main interest ("COMI") of an applicant seeking recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings as "Foreign Main Proceedings" pursuant to Section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA").²

Introduction
Separable assets
Data recovery costs
Other applications

introduction

On 9 October 2012, a bill proposal was introduced to the Luxembourg Parliament providing for a right to claim back "intangible" and non-fungible movable assets from a bankrupt company.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the bill proposal is intended to allow the recovery of data from a bankrupt provider of distance IT services or cloud computing solutions. Once passed, the law will provide greater certainty as to the consequences of the bankruptcy of a cloud computing provider on the data in its possession.

"Separable" Assets

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently reviewed the considerations to be applied on an application by a secured creditor to lift a stay of proceedings granted in an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). In Re Azure Dynamics Corp.,¹ Madam Justice Fitzpatrick confirmed that the classic "doomed to fail" argument will not be persuasive where the applicant creditor is not prejudiced, and where the objectives of the CCAA are best served, by allowing the stay of proceedings to continue.

background