Table of contents
Bankruptcy .............................................................................. 2
Controlled management .......................................................... 2
Moratorium or suspension of payments .................................. 3
Company voluntary arrangement ............................................ 3
Involuntary liquidation.............................................................. 3
Contacts .................................................................................. 4
Pagal šiuo metu galiojančią LR įmonių bankroto įstatymo redakciją, bendrovės vadovas arba akcininkas privalo kreiptis į teismą dėl bankroto bylos bendrovei iškėlimo, jei bendrovė negali ir (arba) negalės atsiskaityti su kreditoriais, arba jei bendrovė viešai yra paskelbusi arba pranešusi kreditoriams, kad neketina vykdyti savo įsipareigojimų. Tokiu būdu geriausiai su įmonės finansine situacija susipažinę subjektai skatinami imtis skubių priemonių, kad žalą patirtų kuo mažiau kreditorių bei kad pradelstų įsipareigojimų dydis būtų kiek įmanoma mažesnis.
According to the current wording of the Republic of Lithuania Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, a head of an enterprise or a shareholder must file a petition with a court for the initiation of the enterprise bankruptcy proceedings in the event where the company is not able and/or shall not be able to settle with its creditors or where the company has made a public announcement or has informed the creditors that it has no intention to discharge its obligations.
Hellas case: The Luxembourg Commercial Court rejects the English liquidators’ one billion EUR claim
In a well motivated judgment rendered on 23 December 2015, the Luxembourg Commercial Court has ruled in favor of the former private equity owners of Hellas Group, i.e.ultimately Apax Partners and TPG Capital, and dismissed the action of the English liquidators of Hellas Telecommunications II SCA (Hellas II) for reimbursement or damages of 973 million EUR.
On 2 March 2016, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal has denied an appeal filed by Dr. Adil Elias, Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt and a handful of other creditors of BCCI against a judgment previously rendered by the Luxembourg Commercial Court, which had refused to reopen the liquidation proceedings of Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. (“BCCI S.A.”) and BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A. (“BCCI Holdings”).
On 25 April 2018 the Court of Appeal ruled on the loss of credit capacity in the context of bankruptcy. The case involved a company that intended to resist a creditor's application for bankruptcy on the basis that it had not lost its credit capacity, as it could prove that the funds needed to settle its debt were available in its lawyer's third-party account. Therefore, the court had to verify whether there was a loss of credit capacity, which is necessary to declare bankruptcy.
On 16 May 2018 the Court of Appeal ruled on the enforcement process for a share pledge realised via the sale of shares in a Luxembourg company by the pledgee in a private transaction for a symbolic price, where the pledgor (a Luxembourg company) was subject to insolvency proceedings.
The Court of Appeal's decision covered the following points.
On 20 November 2018 the Luxembourg District Court ruled on the liability of a liquidator and a liquidation auditor in the event of a voluntary liquidation.
On 30 May 2013 a company's extraordinary general shareholders' meeting agreed to put the company into voluntary liquidation by appointing a liquidator and a liquidation auditor. The liquidation closed on 20 October 2014.
La Cour d'appel de Luxembourg décide que le jugement de clôture de faillite pour insuffisance d'actifs ne met pas un terme aux opérations de faillite, mais en suspend les opérations.
La survie d'une société au terme des opérations de faillite diffère selon l'actif récupéré par le curateur.
Les sociétés commerciales dont les opérations sont clôturées pour insuffisance d'actif restent inscrites au registre de commerce.
According to the Court of Appeal, instead of entirely putting an end to bankruptcy operations, the decision to close the bankruptcy case only "suspends the bankruptcy process", while restoring individual rights to creditors. The appeal judges further indicated that "the bankruptcy regime stops existing, but the debtor remains under the threat of the re-opening of bankruptcy operations, which virtually survive".