The Luxembourg District Court recently ruled that a wrongful action committed by a company in the context of third-party attachment proceedings was justification to pierce the corporate veil. The decision confirms that the often-difficult task of proving that a company is fictitious is no longer the only possible way in which to thwart a debtor's fraudulent manoeuvres.
To counterbalance the negative economic impact that the COVID-19 lockdown measures have triggered, Luxembourg has introduced several regulatory and legislative measures to limit or at least mitigate the financial difficulties that many businesses may face in order to avoid bankruptcy. This article highlights the unforeseeability theory, which has not been used much in previous case law, but could be useful in the context of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to the unprecedented health crisis brought about by COVID-19, many economic actors are facing the impossibility of fulfilling their contractual obligations or do not wish to honour them because they are no longer commercially viable. In the absence of specific material adverse change clauses, one possibility offered by Luxembourg law is the legal concept of force majeure. This article looks at the lessons which can be learned from the available case law in this respect.
In a notable case, the Luxembourg District Court ruled on the requirements for bringing minority actions and whether a broad interpretation thereof is possible. The judgment exposes the common lack of legal recourse available to shareholders who hold equal parts in a company. Whereas majority shareholders can impose their will at general assemblies and minority shareholders can commence minority actions, the possibility for equal shareholders to take similar action would lead to a problematic stalemate.
In Luxembourg, several time limits apply with regard to prescription periods. Notably, the inclusion of specific prescription periods in the Law of 10 August 1915 on Commercial Companies does not preclude the application of prescription periods as provided for in the Civil Code. The Luxembourg District Court recently reiterated this position in a judgment regarding prescription periods for invalidating shareholder decisions.