LexGo

Piercing the corporate veil of a Luxembourg limited liability company - Recent case law
05/05/2022

On 3 April 2019, the Luxembourg court of appeal reiterated certain principles applicable for a claimant seeking to pierce the corporate veil of a Luxembourg limited liability company to bring a legal action directly against its sole shareholder.

In the case at hand, the share capital of a Luxembourg public limited liability company (société anonyme) holding a building plot (“PropCo”) was split between, among others, the defendant (under his own name and via a company referred to as “SOC 3” in the decision) and another company which was wholly owned by the claimant.

Pursuant to an agreement concluded by and between the claimant and the defendant on 8 August 2000 (the “Agreement”), the defendant undertook to ensure that SOC 3, which was not a party to such agreement, shall share with the claimant’s entity half of the profit generated by the transfer of the shares in PropCo.

Several years after such transfer had been completed, the claimant brought a legal action against the defendant and claimed, among other things, that the Court shall pierce the corporate veil of SOC 3 and rule that the defendant, in his capacity as shareholder of SOC 3, shall be liable for the payment of sums due under the Agreement.

In the case at hand, the Court first noted that SOC 3 was not a party to the Agreement which was entered into by the claimant and the defendant in his personal name (and not in his capacity as representative or shareholder of SOC 3). The Court then inferred from the provisions of the Agreement that the defendant undertook to ensure that SOC 3 will indeed pay to the claimant half of the profit to be made in relation with PropCo’s transfer of shares.

This commitment of the defendant was qualified by the Court as an undertaking on behalf of a third party, i.e. SOC 3 (a promesse de porte-fort governed by article 1120 of the Luxembourg civil Code).

Based on these observations, the Court reminded that in case of breach of an undertaking on behalf of a third party, the defendant, may not be ordered to perform such obligation but may only be held liable for the damages incurred by the party towards which the commitment has been undertaken, in case SOC3 does not fulfil the relevant obligation itself.

The Court then stated that the corporate veil separating a Luxembourg limited liability company and its sole shareholder may only be pierced if a plurality of consistent elements substantiates a misuse of the legal capacity of the company in the personal interest of its sole shareholder.

In other words, in order to pierce the corporate veil of a limited liability company, one should demonstrate that there is a confusion between the actions and/or the estate of the company and the actions and/or the estate of its sole shareholder resulting from the behaviour of the latter.

In the case at hand, the Court ruled that the mere holding of the shares in SOC3 by the defendant as sole shareholder was not sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil.

Finally, the decision confirmed that as SOC3 had indeed paid to the claimant’s entity its portion of the consideration due further to the transfer of the shares in PropCo, the defendant had fulfilled his undertaking by ensuring such payment and thus incurred no personal liability.

Voir aussi : CMS Luxembourg ( Mrs. Andreea Antonescu ,  Mr. Cédric Dvoratchek )

[+ http://www.cms-db.com]

Mrs. Andreea Antonescu Mrs. Andreea Antonescu
Senior Counsel
[email protected]
Mr. Cédric Dvoratchek Mr. Cédric Dvoratchek
Managing Associate
[email protected]

Tous les articles Droit des sociétés

Derniers articles Droit des sociétés

Deletion of documents published with the RCS – Recent Luxembourg case law
10/06/2022

Legal proceedings were initiated in front of the Luxembourg district court by a public limited liability company (soci&eac...

Read more

CSSF Circular 22/811 on UCI Administrators
03/06/2022

On 16 May 2022, the CSSF issued Circular 22/811 concerning the authorisation and organisation of entities acting...

CSSF Circular 22/811 on UCI Administrators Read more

Réforme du droit d'établissement à Luxembourg : à quoi faut-il s'attendre ?
04/05/2022

Le 8 avril 2022, le ministre des Classes Moyennes a déposé le projet de loi n°7989 modifiant l...

Read more

The European Commission’s proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence
18/04/2022

On 23 February 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Dil...

The European Commission’s proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence Read more

Derniers articles de Mrs. Andreea Antonescu

Accepted invoice principle (“principe de la facture acceptée”) – Application to lawyers’...
04/07/2022

While lawyers may exercise their activity by forming a commercial company, such law firm admitted to the Luxembourg Bar is...

Read more

Deletion of documents published with the RCS – Recent Luxembourg case law
10/06/2022

Legal proceedings were initiated in front of the Luxembourg district court by a public limited liability company (soci&eac...

Read more

Grounds to reverse a judicial liquidation - recent Luxembourg case law
25/02/2022

On 14 December 2021, the Luxembourg court of appeal rendered a decision setting out the potential grounds for overturning ...

Read more

Unilateral termination of agreements - recent Luxembourg case law
12/01/2022

On 2 July 2020, the Luxembourg court of appeal rendered a decision relating to the consequences of the non-fulfilment of a...

Read more

Derniers articles de Mr. Cédric Dvoratchek

LexGO Network