LUXEMBOURG Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ana Nicoleta Andreiana, Madeleine Dos Santos Marques, Patrick Ries and Sofia Polykandrioti, Loyens & Loeff
tion 343 of the German Insolvency Code and Section 328 of the German Civil Procedure Code, citing two key concerns: the plan lacked the necessary collectiv - ity to qualify as an insolvency proceeding, and the lack of reciprocity between the UK and Germany following Brexit. The court also ruled that the Brussels Conven - tion no longer applied, further limiting the legal basis for recognition. While the judgment is not final and remains subject to appeal, its reasoning raises certain questions for Lux - embourg, particularly in the context of cross-border recognition and enforcement of non-EU restructuring tools. The decision is especially relevant for Luxem - bourg, given the involvement of Luxembourg-incor - porated entities in the Aggregate Group restructuring. The UK restructuring plan had direct implications for these entities, including the extinguishment of creditor claims and the release of guarantees. The Frankfurt decision also raises broader concerns about the via - bility of COMI shifts to the UK as a restructuring strat - egy to access the UK’s flexible restructuring regime. Contrary to the approach taken by the Frankfurt Region - al Court, crucially, the Luxembourg District Court in the decision analysed above (2025TALCH02/00603) did not determine whether a UK restructuring plan qualifies as an insolvency process under Luxembourg law. This is particularly important as insolvency pro - cesses benefit from the general principle of univer - sality or unicity of insolvency procedures – ie, aside from cases governed by the EU Insolvency Regula - tion, insolvency proceedings of a debtor should apply comprehensively to all of its assets with recognition being granted across jurisdictions. Following this principle, Luxembourg courts will, where certain con - ditions apply, recognise foreign, non-EU insolvency judgments automatically without requiring a separate exequatur decision from a Luxembourg court. This omission is particularly relevant in light of the Frankfurt Regional Court’s approach, where such court considered that a UK restructuring plan lacked the necessary collectivity to be considered an insol - vency proceeding under German law. The Luxem - bourg court’s silence on this point leaves open the question of whether similar reasoning could be con - sidered in Luxembourg. There is room to argue that
this will not be the case, particularly given their numer - ous similarities with insolvency procedures included in Annex A, and especially with the Luxembourg judicial reorganisation by collective agreement ( réorganisation judiciaire par accord collectif ). The interplay between the Luxembourg and Frank - furt decisions thus highlights the evolving challenges in cross-border restructurings involving Luxembourg entities, particularly in a non-EU context, and nota - bly with respect to the recognition and enforcement of foreign restructuring plans, especially when their effects extend to Luxembourg assets or rights. Inclusion of Luxembourg Judicial Reorganisation in Annex A of the EU Insolvency Regulation These Luxembourg and provisional Frankfurt deci - sions arrive at a critical juncture when the Luxembourg restructuring framework is being shaped by the reform introduced by the Law of 7 August 2023 and the inclu - sion of its procedures in Annex A of the EU Insolvency Regulation, prompting renewed attention to recogni - tion risks, enforcement pathways and jurisdictional considerations in cross-border restructurings involv - ing Luxembourg entities. The modification of Annex A of the EU Insolvency Regulation was indeed published in the Official Jour - nal of the European Union on 17 October 2025, follow - ing the adaptation of the relevant amendment regula - tion on 8 October 2025. For Luxembourg, Annex A now includes the three options for judicial reorganisations – ie, reorganisa - tion by collective agreement, reorganisation by judicial transfer of assets or activities and reorganisation via an amicable agreement with the debtor’s creditors. In addition, the court-appointed agent ( mandataire de justice ) which may be appointed under the Law of 7 August 2023 is also mentioned in Annex B of the Insolvency Regulation. This official recognition at EU level comes almost two years after the entry into force of the Law of 7 August 2023. The absence of such recognition, in particular, its consequence on jurisdiction, was already noted by the Luxembourg courts, specifically in the Aggregate
323 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook