Chapter 11 Litigation – MOLITOR were retained in a matter referred to them by a leading US law firm. MOLITOR advised the client, who was in the oil refinery business, in the context of US litigation following its being put under Chapter 11. Some creditors, through a litigation trust, sued the company following the take-over by a wealthy Russian of a much larger company worth 20 billion dollars (thereby giving it huge leverage) on the basis that previous valuations were far less per share. The companies were merged and, due to the size of the debt, collapsed. Some creditors received compensation but unsecured creditors sued everyone they could find, including the Luxembourg entity. The client approached MOLITOR after receiving unsatisfactory advice from another firm.

Managerial Liability – MOLITOR were requested by a professional services firm, in its capacity as liquidator of a Luxembourg SICAV, to determine the potential liabilities that the various players (the employees and legal representatives of the investment managers, board of directors, custodian agents, administrative agents, domiciliary agents, auditors) involved in the management, operation and supervision of the fund may have to face due to the incorrect calculation of NAV and the payment of undue performance fees, etc.

Construction Dispute –MOLITOR is instructed by a fund management company and fund portfolio manager in relation to multi-million Euro legal proceedings issued against it by the judicial liquidator of a regulated undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) established as an investment company with variable capital.

Bond Repayment Dispute – MOLITOR is acting for a Panama based purchaser of bonds in relation to a 40 million Euro dispute on the terms and conditions of the issued bonds and a related guarantee.

Hedge Fund Dispute – MOLITOR is acting on behalf of several hedge funds who had invested in sub-funds of Luxembourg based regulated investment funds. In accordance with their investment policy, these sub-funds had acquired debt instruments issued by a UK-based financial services company, which subsequently collapsed. The dispute relates to establishing negligent and / or fraudulent misrepresentation by the UK financial services company.