Case Law
Rule 311: Insolvency of a party

Court of Appeal – Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 26/02/2024, NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. / 10x Genomics, Inc.; President and Fellows of Harvard College (Case number UPC_CoA_335/2023, ORD_6653/2024)
Example of decision regarding a stay of the proceedings where a party has been declared insolvent after the oral hearing: “According to the wording of Rule 311.1, first sentence, RoP a stay is provided for if a party has been declared insolvent. However, the Rules of Procedure are to be interpreted in accordance with Art. 41(3) UPCA so as to ensure a fair balance between the legitimate interests of all parties, that the proceedings are conducted in the most efficient and cost effective manner and that the required level of discretion of judge is provided without impairing the predictability of proceedings for the parties. However, it would not be compatible with the principles of procedural economy and cost efficiency if the proceedings had to be stayed even in a case in which a party was only declared insolvent after the oral hearing had concluded and the legal dispute was ready for a decision. At this stage of the proceedings, the parties have already taken all procedural steps and all costs have already been incurred by the parties. If the decision or order has an effect on the insolvency estate, it does not differ from the effect that a decision or order issued before the declaration of insolvency would have had. Furthermore, the interest in a timely order weighs particularly heavily in proceedings aimed at provisional legal protection, as is the case here. Furthermore, it leads to a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties if events that only occurred after the conclusion of the oral hearing are also no longer to be considered in the decision-making process.”