Luxembourg court decisions allow secured lenders to enforce Gecina share pledge.

A controversial insolvency dispute winding its way through courts in Spain and Luxembourg may reinforce the rights of secured lenders to enforce financial collateral within an insolvency proceeding. While the recent Luxembourg Tribunal decision enforcing a financial collateral pledge for payment default appears to favor the secured lenders, a potentially contradictory decision from the Spanish Commercial Courts throws the issue into uncertain territory.

RESTRUCTURING - COURT PROCEDURES

Formal, court-driven restructuring proceedings are available into Luxembourg law, but for practical reasons, these are rarely used in practice.

Reprieve from payment procedure (sursis de paiement)

In the context of joint liquidators’ applications for documents “belonging to” the company or “relating to” its affairs (under sections 324 and 326 of the Insolvency Act 1986), the High Court confirmed that English law applied to determine whether documents could be withheld by the Luxembourg lawyers who were respondents to the application.

In the recent Federal Court case of Abdul Rashid bin Mohamad Isa v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2024] MLJU 1518, the core issue that arose in the appeal was whether the withdrawal of the Creditor’s Petition constituted a termination of the entire bankruptcy proceedings including the Bankruptcy Notice served on the Judgment Debtor

BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE

Introduction

Luxembourg’s sophisticated financial services infrastructure, global brand recognition, full EU single market access and extensive double tax treaty network has lead to its development as a core jurisdiction for non-regulated investment structures. This has resulted in the domiciling of several tens of thousands of investment holding companies, many of which form part of globally recognised corporate groups or hold the portfolio investments of leading international investment funds.

The company sits at the apex of the Singapore-headquartered Otto Marine Group, which has some 70 subsidiaries, associate companies and indirect subsidiaries, employing more than 622 employees worldwide. The Otto Marine Group is in the business of investment holding, construction, repair and servicing of vessels, chartering and leasing of vessels, and offshore services. The sole director and effective shareholder of Otto Marine is Malaysian tycoon Datuk Seri Yaw Chee Siew.

Introduction

Typically, once an order has been drawn up and sealed, the court becomes functus officio and has no power to vary or set aside the same. However, an exception to this rule is where an order has been irregularly obtained. This exception was recently expounded on in the leading Federal Court decision of Badiaddin bin Mohd Mahidin v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd.(1)

Introduction

It is well known that directors have a duty to act in good faith and in a company's best interests. This duty takes centre stage, especially in times when a company's survival is threatened.

Introduction

The Federal Court recently addressed the proper construction of Section 93(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 and Rule 276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1967 in Ambank (M) Berhad v Lim Sue Beng.(1) In this appeal, the Federal Court was requested to decide on the following question of law:

In the recent decision of Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2019] CLJ 723 (“Cubic Electronics”), the apex court of Malaysia revisited the principles on forfeiture of deposits and the treatment of liquidated damages clauses in contracts.  

FACTS