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.
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.