Management-body responsibility

The CSSF expects all management-body members to establish governance for frontier-AI-related risk, monitor it and support resilience against AI-enabled threats.

For DORA entities subject to the general ICT risk-management framework, and taking account of the applicable proportionality requirements, this expectation complements Articles 5(1), 5(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (g), 5(4) and 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of 14 December 2022 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (the Digital Operational Resilience Act or DORA). The CSSF Communiqué frames its supervisory expectations by reference to existing ICT-risk requirements. It does not create a separate AI-specific legal regime.

Exposure-led controls

The CSSF recommends reducing the attack surface, maintaining an accurate ICT-asset inventory, removing unsupported technology and prioritising remediation by exposure and exploitability rather than severity scores alone.

Operational response procedures should cover a dedicated no-patch-exists scenario, supported by pre-built and tested containment measures and clearly defined authority to activate them. Subject to DORA’s scope and proportionality rules, relevant provisions include Articles 8(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 9(4)(b), (d), (e) and (f), 10(1) to (3), 11(2)(b) and (c), 24(1), (3), (5) and (6), and 25(1).

AI for defence

The CSSF encourages AI-assisted vulnerability discovery, alert triage and threat hunting, subject to human review and clear ownership of remediation.

The Warning of the European Systemic Risk Board of 25 June 2026 on systemic cyber risks stemming from frontier artificial intelligence models, ESRB/2026/3 (the ESRB Warning), published on 7 July 2026, identifies systemic risks arising from frontier AI models.

The Financial Stability Board consultation report of 10 June 2026, “Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Consultation report” (the FSB Consultation) proposes 12 non-binding sound practices. Comments are due by 22 July 2026.

Practical conclusion: as an operational implementation measure, relevant supervised entities should document a management-approved action plan covering accountability, asset exposure, remediation priorities, no-patch containment, detection, recovery and testing.

Connect with Bertrand Mariaux on LinkedIn. You can listen to the related podcast on ApplePodcast, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

References:

• CSSF Communiqué of 7 July 2026, “Evolving opportunities and risks in artificial intelligence and its adoption”
• Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of 14 December 2022, Articles 5(1), 5(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (g), 5(4), 6(1), 8(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7), 9(4)(b), (d), (e) and (f), 10(1) to (3), 11(2)(b) and (c), 24(1), (3), (5) and (6), and 25(1)
• Warning of the European Systemic Risk Board of 25 June 2026 on systemic cyber risks stemming from frontier artificial intelligence models, ESRB/2026/3
• Financial Stability Board, “Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Consultation report”, consultation report of 10 June 2026

La circulaire CSSF 23/840 du 14 septembre 2023 relative à l’application des orientations de l’ESMA sur les exigences en matière de gouvernance des produits au titre de MiFID II couvre également les dépôts structurés, c’est-à-dire des dépôts dont le remboursement ou la rémunération dépend, en tout ou en partie, de l’évolution d’un ou plusieurs actifs, indices, taux ou autres références. Elle s’applique dans les situations où les établissements de crédit et les entreprises d’investissement les commercialisent, les distribuent ou fournissent des conseils à leur sujet. Cette extension découle du cadre MiFID II, qui soumet certaines obligations de gouvernance des produits aux acteurs intervenant dans la vente ou le conseil relatif aux dépôts structurés. En pratique, ces professionnels doivent identifier le marché cible approprié, évaluer la compatibilité du produit avec les besoins, caractéristiques et objectifs des clients visés, et mettre en place des dispositifs de contrôle permettant de s’assurer que les dépôts structurés sont distribués conformément à leur conception et à leur public cible.

MIFID II (comme définie ci-dessus et telle que consolidée au 17 janvier 2025, et référencée ci-dessous), fixe le cadre européen. La directive déléguée (UE) 2017/593 de la Commission du 7 avril 2016 la complète. L’Autorité européenne des marchés financiers (European Securities and Markets Authority, « ESMA ») émet des orientations en matière de gouvernance des produits. La Commission de surveillance du secteur financier (« CSSF ») les a intégrées par la circulaire CSSF 23/840.

Les orientations s’appliquent depuis le 3 octobre 2023. Elles ne s’appliquent pas lorsque des instruments financiers sont commercialisés ou distribués exclusivement à des contreparties éligibles. En vertu de l’article 30 de MiFID II, les contreparties éligibles comprennent notamment les entreprises d’investissement, les établissements de crédit, les entreprises d’assurance, les OPCVM et leurs sociétés de gestion, les fonds de pension et leurs sociétés de gestion, d’autres établissements financiers agréés ou réglementés, les gouvernements nationaux, les banques centrales et les organisations supranationales.

Gouvernance des produits MiFID II : trois contrôles du distributeur

Première obligation : identifier le marché cible. Associer le produit aux besoins, caractéristiques et objectifs des clients. Définir le marché cible négatif. L’exception de durabilité s’applique le cas échéant, ce qui signifie que les objectifs et préférences de durabilité doivent être pris en compte lors de l’évaluation du groupe de clients concerné. Lorsque des caractéristiques environnementales, sociales ou de gouvernance (“ESG”) font partie de la conception du produit, les distributeurs doivent les refléter dans l’évaluation du marché cible et dans l’approche de distribution.

Deuxième obligation : maîtriser la stratégie de distribution. Cela signifie décider comment le produit sera proposé aux clients. Le canal de distribution doit correspondre aux clients identifiés dans le marché cible. Le mode de prestation du service doit aussi convenir au produit. Par exemple, un produit vendu avec conseil en investissement offre généralement plus de protection qu’un produit vendu en exécution seule, où le client prend sa décision d’investissement sans conseil.

Troisième obligation : revoir le produit. Maintenir les dispositifs de gouvernance à jour. Réévaluer lorsque les conditions du produit, le risque ou les profils clients évoluent.

L’article 9 du règlement grand-ducal du 30 mai 2018 constitue un contrôle légal permanent. Un dossier d’approbation défendable doit couvrir six domaines : informations du producteur, marché cible, canaux de distribution autorisés et restrictions éventuelles sur la manière dont le produit peut être proposé, modèle de service utilisé pour distribuer le produit, preuve de revue et de surveillance de conformité, y compris la justification de l’approbation du produit pour le marché cible identifié, et prochain déclencheur de révision.

Références :

• Article 9 du règlement grand-ducal du 30 mai 2018 relatif à la protection des instruments financiers et des fonds des clients, aux obligations applicables en matière de gouvernance des produits et aux règles régissant l’octroi ou la perception de droits, de commissions ou de tout autre avantage monétaire ou non monétaire, version consolidée applicable au 22 novembre 2022 (https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2018/05/30/a447/consolide/20221122)

• Version consolidée au 17 janvier 2025 de la directive 2014/65/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 15 mai 2014 concernant les marchés d’instruments financiers et modifiant la directive 2002/92/CE et la directive 2011/61/UE (« MiFID II ») (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02014L0065-20250117)

• Directive déléguée (UE) 2017/593 de la Commission du 7 avril 2016 complétant la directive 2014/65/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil en ce qui concerne la sauvegarde des instruments financiers et des fonds des clients, les obligations applicables en matière de gouvernance des produits et les règles régissant l’octroi ou la perception de droits, de commissions ou de tout autre avantage pécuniaire ou non pécuniaire (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017L0593)

• Circulaire CSSF 23/840 du 14 septembre 2023 relative à l’application des orientations de l’ESMA sur les exigences en matière de gouvernance des produits au titre de MiFID II (https://www.cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/cssf23_840.pdf)

Connectez-vous avec Bertrand Mariaux sur LinkedIn.

Vous pouvez écouter le podcast associé sur Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube ou sur votre plateforme d’écoute préférée.

Directive 2014/65/EU of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (“MiFID II“) sets the European framework. Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 of 7 April 2016 supplements it. The European Securities and Markets Authority (the “ESMA“) issues product governance guidelines. The Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the “CSSF“) integrated them through CSSF Circular 23/840. The Guidelines apply from 3 October 2023. They do not apply where financial instruments are marketed or distributed exclusively to eligible counterparties. Under Article 30 of MiFID II, eligible counterparties include investment firms, credit institutions, insurance companies, UCITS and their management companies, pension funds and their management companies, other authorised or regulated financial institutions, national governments, central banks and supranational organisations.

MiFID II product governance: three distributor controls

First: identify the target market. Map the product to client needs, characteristics, and objectives. Identify the negative target market. The sustainability carve-out applies where relevant, meaning that sustainability-related objectives and preferences should be considered when assessing whether a product is appropriate for a particular client group. Where environmental, social, or governance (ESG) features form part of the product design, distributors should ensure that these characteristics are reflected in the target market assessment and distribution approach.

Second: control the distribution strategy. This means deciding how the product will be offered to clients. The distribution channel should match the type of clients identified in the target market. The way the firm provides the service should also suit the product. For example, a product sold with investment advice generally offers more investor protection than a product sold on an execution-only basis, where the client makes the investment decision without receiving advice.

Third: review the product. Keep governance arrangements current. Reassess when product conditions, market risk, or client profiles change.

Article 9 of the Grand-ducal Regulation of 30 May 2018 is not a one-off label. It is a standing legal control. A defensible approval file should cover six areas: product manufacturer information, target market, authorised distribution channels and any restrictions on how the product may be offered, the service model used to distribute the product (such as advised, discretionary, or execution-only services), evidence of compliance review and oversight, including the rationale for approving the product for the identified target market, and next review trigger.

References:

• Article 9 of the Grand-ducal Regulation of 30 May 2018 on the protection of financial instruments and funds belonging to clients, product governance obligations and the rules applicable to the provision or reception of fees, commissions or any monetary or non-monetary benefits (https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2018/05/30/a447/jo)

• Consolidated version as of 17 January 2025 of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (“MiFID II”) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02014L0065-20250117)

• Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 of 7 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU with regard to safeguarding of financial instruments and funds belonging to clients, product governance obligations and rules on fees, commissions and monetary or non-monetary benefits (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017L0593)

• CSSF Circular 23/840 of 14 September 2023 on the application of the ESMA Guidelines on MiFID II product governance requirements (https://www.cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/cssf23_840eng.pdf)

Connect with Bertrand Mariaux on LinkedIn.
You can listen to the related podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Luxembourg law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, as amended (the “1993 Law”), is the core Luxembourg statute for credit institutions and investment firms. This matters because private banking is not limited to deposits and account services. It often includes investment advice, portfolio management and securities orders, which may be provided either by a credit institution or, where properly authorised, by an investment firm.

Cross-border private banking and the EEA passport

For European Economic Area (“EEA“) business, Article 34 of the 1993 Law separates the passporting mechanics. A Luxembourg credit institution must notify the Commission de surveillance du secteur financier (“CSSF“) before first-time EEA service provision. A Luxembourg investment firm must notify the CSSF before first-time service provision and before changing the range of services or activities already notified; that change requires at least one month’s written notice before implementation.

The EEA passport gives access, not a blank cheque. It removes the need for a separate full licence in each EEA country for the notified services. It does not remove the need to check how the bank may approach clients, provide advice, discuss products, send marketing material and evidence the decision in the file.

The CSSF’s Private Banking Sub-Sector Risk Assessment 2023 confirms why this matters: around eighty per cent of Luxembourg private-banking clients have their fiscal residence outside Luxembourg.

Listen to the related podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

For ordinary termination under Article 74 of the Payment Services Law, a payment service provider may terminate an indefinite framework contract only where the right is expressly stipulated in the contract and at least two months’ notice is given. A payment service user may terminate at any time; any notice period imposed on the user may not exceed one month.

Key Takeaways

• Provider-led termination of an indefinite framework contract requires a contractual basis and a minimum two-month notice period.

• Termination is free for the user, except where the contract has been in force for less than six months; any charge must be appropriate and correspond to costs.

• For consumers, the Law of 13 June 2017 on payment accounts adds rules on fee transparency, account switching, and access to payment accounts with basic features.

A retail account closure is a legal and operational process that must be documented account by account. Operational points include joint accounts, dormant clients, cards, direct debits, negative balances, and access to a replacement account before closure. In practice, each closure should be traceable from the contractual basis and termination notice through to the final account status.

You can listen to the related podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The statutory framework

Under Article 1(10) of the Luxembourg Law of 5 August 2005 on financial collateral arrangements (the “Financial Collateral Law”), “relevant financial obligations” means obligations secured by a financial collateral arrangement that give a right to cash settlement and/or delivery of financial instruments, or to assets underlying those financial instruments.

The definition is deliberately broad. Relevant financial obligations may include: present or future obligations; actual, contingent or prospective obligations; obligations owed by a person other than the collateral provider; and obligations of a specified class or kind arising from time to time. The law states expressly that present, future, actual, contingent or prospective obligations need not be specifically described in the financial collateral arrangement.

This statutory breadth is a feature, not a drafting shortcut. It allows parties to structure revolving facilities, uncommitted lines, hedging arrangements, fee obligations, indemnities and multi-party credit structures within a single collateral framework — provided the documents are internally consistent.

Practical discipline

The permissive scope of Article 1(10) does not remove the obligation to draft coherently. In practice, the secured obligations clause must be tested against the full transaction document stack: the facility agreement, side letters, hedging documents, accession mechanics, security-agent wording, amendment history, and custody or account-control arrangements.

The practical test is straightforward: the pledge, facility agreement, parties, collateral description and enforcement mechanics must all describe the same secured exposure. Where the pledge is intended to secure principal, interest, default interest, fees, indemnities, break costs, refinancing liabilities, increased commitments or third-party obligations, each category should be addressed expressly or through a clearly defined perimeter — not through vague omnibus language that may not withstand scrutiny at enforcement.

The risk in Luxembourg practice is not broad drafting as such — Article 1(10) permits a wide secured-obligations perimeter. The risk is uncontrolled breadth or internal inconsistency: a pledge that captures obligations the facility agreement does not support, or a collateral description that does not map to the account or asset structure that credit risk actually relies on.

Why Luxembourg

Luxembourg’s Financial Collateral Law is designed for cross-border financial assets, fund interests, custody accounts and professional market participants. For fund finance, Lombard lending, subscription finance and structured credit, the law’s permissive treatment of the secured obligations perimeter is a structural advantage — but only where the drafting is disciplined enough to use it correctly.

Listen

• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify

• YouTube — Bertrand Mariaux Avocats

• YouTube — Rigore

Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) governance in Luxembourg has moved beyond procedural compliance. It now functions as an operational discipline: risk assessment, customer due diligence, internal organisation, escalation and documentary evidence must work together as a coherent system.

For investment fund managers, credit institutions, payment institutions and other CSSF-supervised entities, the obligation is not simply to collect KYC (Know Your Customer) data. It is to maintain a documented, proportionate control framework that connects client profile, product type, geographic risk, transaction pattern, governance structure and escalation routes into a single defensible record.

The AMLA Framework

The EU’s Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) is a decentralised EU agency coordinating national supervisors to ensure consistent application of EU rules. AMLA’s public consultation on draft business-wide risk assessment guidelines opened on 16 April 2026 and closes on 15 July 2026 at 23:59 CEST. AMLA’s published timeline confirms the selection of 40 obliged entities for direct supervision during 2027, with full operational supervision commencing in 2028.

Luxembourg’s National AML/CFT Portal

On 6 May 2026, Luxembourg’s Ministry of Justice launched a centralised AML/CFT information portal consolidating legislation, FATF standards, national risk assessments, guidance and news. This is a reference-infrastructure development, not a new substantive obligation, but it consolidates access to primary sources in one place.

The CSSF Supervisory Perimeter

The CSSF’s AML/CFT remit covers a broad range of entities including credit institutions, investment firms, investment fund managers, investment funds, payment institutions, crypto-asset service providers and virtual asset service providers. For the fund sector, the AML/CFT Summary Report RC — the report of the Responsable du Contrôle — applies to Luxembourg investment fund managers and CSSF-supervised investment funds, subject to the Article 42(7) CSSF Regulation 12-02 carve-out for funds that have appointed a Luxembourg management company submitting the report.

Operational Execution

Credible risk-based compliance requires internal consistency: risk assessment, client file, approval trail and monitoring logic must align. The CSSF’s 2026 update for specialised professionals providing corporate services confirms that supervised entities must integrate sub-sector risk assessment findings into their AML/CFT frameworks. Onboarding packs, beneficial-owner checks, investor files, board reporting and remediation notes must tell one coherent story.

Conclusion

The practical standard in Luxembourg is clear: a short, defensible chain from risk assessment to decision, with proportionate follow-up and board-level visibility where the structure requires it. The goal is not a voluminous file — it is a file that explains itself. The 15 July 2026 AMLA consultation deadline is the immediate fixed point for practitioners tracking EU-level regulatory convergence.

YouTube: https://youtu.be/LX-aA7vsmtc

Subscribe: https://youtube.com/@bertrandmariauxavocats

Apple Podcast

#Luxembourg #InvestmentFunds #AMLCFT #RegulatoryCompliance #LuxembourgFundcast

This new framework transitions lending from a singular transaction to a process of continuous stewardship. A highly significant development is the formal integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors as tangible, measurable drivers of credit risk.

This analysis examines the practical impact on loan agreements, from new data-driven information covenants to enforceable ESG targets and sustainability-linked pricing mechanisms.

Explore the full analysis in “CSSF Circular 22/824: Loan Origination & ESG” on The Luxembourg Fundcast:

• Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cssf-circular-22-824-loan-origination-esg/id1811791497?i=1000732234527
• Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0bCKqFThk1Xh8Uyf8okRXK?si=JnZB8yN7Q6e34OBxp4w_Qg
• YouTube (Rigore): https://youtu.be/u9oPpIYo7I4

We invite you to subscribe to the BERTRAND MARIAUX AVOCATS channel for further regulatory insights: https://youtu.be/L4J-YPGuaqM

#Luxembourg #InvestmentFunds #Finance #AssetManagement #Podcast #LuxembourgFundcast #FinancialRegulation #ESG #CSSF #CreditRisk

CSSF 22/824 : Octroi de Crédit et ESG au Luxembourg

L’ère du prêt purement transactionnel à Luxembourg est révolue. La circulaire CSSF 22/824, qui transpose les directives de l’Autorité Bancaire Européenne (ABE), modifie en profondeur la gestion du risque de crédit.

Ce nouveau cadre impose une transition d’une logique transactionnelle vers une surveillance continue du prêt. Le développement le plus significatif est l’intégration formelle des facteurs Environnementaux, Sociaux et de Gouvernance (ESG) comme des composantes clés et mesurables du risque de crédit.

Cette analyse examine l’impact pratique sur les contrats de prêt, incluant les nouvelles clauses d’information et les objectifs ESG contractuels, ainsi que les mécanismes d’ajustement de marge liés à la durabilité.

Découvrez l’analyse complète dans l’épisode « CSSF 22/824 : Octroi de Crédit et ESG au Luxembourg » sur Luxembourg Fundcast (Version Française) :

• Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cssf-22-824-octroi-de-cr%C3%A9dit-et-esg-au-luxembourg/id1824719233?i=1000732234963
• Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3gmowVX3uJs50fow85MrCs
• YouTube (Rigore) : https://youtu.be/09MGs-7LVpU

Nous vous invitons à vous abonner à la chaîne BERTRAND MARIAUX AVOCATS pour plus d’analyses réglementaires : https://youtu.be/L4J-YPGuaqM

#Luxembourg #InvestmentFunds #Finance #AssetManagement #Podcast #LuxembourgFundcast #FinancialRegulation #ESG #CSSF #RisquedeCrédit

For managers using flexible vehicles like the Special Limited Partnership (SCSp), the changes are not just compliance points; they are strategic imperatives that will reshape legal agreements and fund operations.

Key transformations include:

• Hard-Coded Strategy Constraints: New rules impose a 5% risk retention requirement, leverage caps (175% for open-ended, 300% for closed-ended funds), and a 20% concentration limit for certain financial borrowers.
• The LPA as the New Focus: These regulatory limits must be meticulously drafted into the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA), directly impacting negotiations between General and Limited Partners on everything from risk factors to the distribution waterfall.
• Enhanced Substance & Operations: The directive codifies substance requirements and mandates formal policies for credit risk and portfolio management, bringing private credit operations closer to traditional fund models.

The full analysis of how to navigate this new framework is available in the episode “AIFMD II: Loan-Originating Funds and the SCSp in Luxembourg”.

You can listen to the episode on:

• Apple Podcasts

• Spotify:

For more regulatory analysis, subscribe to the law firm’s channel:

https://youtube.com/@bertrandmariauxavocats?si=rLSYRBoxnFh42vuB

AIFMD II : Loan-Originating Funds et la SCSp au Luxembourg

La directive sur les gestionnaires de fonds d’investissement alternatifs (AIFMD) II va redéfinir le paysage des fonds de prêt. Le projet de loi luxembourgeois 8628 a officiellement lancé le compte à rebours, précisant comment ces nouvelles règles paneuropéennes seront intégrées.

Pour les gérants utilisant des véhicules flexibles comme la société en commandite spéciale (SCSp), les changements sont des impératifs stratégiques qui refaçonneront les contrats et les opérations des fonds.

Les points clés incluent :

• Contraintes stratégiques directes : Les nouvelles règles imposent une rétention du risque de 5 %, des plafonds de levier (175 % pour les fonds ouverts, 300 % pour les fonds fermés) et une limite de concentration de 20 % pour certains emprunteurs financiers.
• Le contrat social au centre des attentions : Ces limites doivent être méticuleusement intégrées dans le contrat social (LPA), impactant les négociations entre associés commandités et commanditaires.
• Substance et opérations renforcées : La directive formalise les exigences de substance et impose des politiques de gestion du risque de crédit, rapprochant les opérations de “private credit” des modèles de fonds traditionnels.

L’analyse complète est disponible dans l’épisode « AIFMD II : Loan-Originating Funds et la SCSp in Luxembourg ».

Vous pouvez écouter l’épisode sur :

• Apple Podcasts

• Spotify

#Luxembourg #InvestmentFunds #Finance #AssetManagement #Podcast #LuxembourgFundcast #FinancialRegulation #AIFMD2 #PrivateCredit #SCSp #LoanOrigination #FondsDePrêt

#Luxembourg #InvestmentFunds #Finance #AssetManagement #Podcast #LuxembourgFundcast #FinancialRegulation #AIFMD2 #PrivateCredit #SCSp #LoanOrigination

Our latest analysis breaks down the key mechanics:

• A Luxembourg SCSp can complete a cross-border conversion under the General Regime, relocating its registered office without dissolution, provided the destination jurisdiction recognises the partnership’s continued existence as a contractual arrangement.
• The critical condition is that the destination jurisdiction recognises the SCSp’s continued existence as a partnership or equivalent vehicle, allowing legal and operational continuity.
• This mechanism preserves the fund’s contractual integrity and history, avoiding the complexities of liquidation and re-establishment.

The full analysis of the legal framework and practical steps is available in our podcast episode “SCSp Crossborder Mobility”.

You can also subscribe to the BERTRAND MARIAUX AVOCATS YouTube channel for more insights.

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scsp-crossborder-mobility/id1811791497?i=1000731895299

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5baOYSqvUEZo5zMZi0fONJ

YouTube (BERTRAND MARIAUX AVOCATS): https://youtu.be/iHx1KQb82eU?si=hZH0GfEKcQYXdCOv

YouTube (Rigore Media): https://youtu.be/fgKsKSGpEeQ

SCSp et mobilité transfrontalière

La mobilité transfrontalière d’une SCSp luxembourgeoise est un outil stratégique, mais ses mécanismes sont souvent perçus comme complexes. Un transfert de siège à l’étranger entraîne-t-il nécessairement une dissolution ?

Notre dernière analyse révèle plusieurs points clés :

• Une SCSp luxembourgeoise peut réaliser une conversion transfrontalière au titre du régime général, transférant son siège statutaire sans dissolution, sous réserve que l’État de destination reconnaisse la continuité du partenariat comme arrangement contractuel.
• La condition clé est la reconnaissance, par l’État d’accueil, de la continuité de la SCSp en tant que partenariat ou véhicule équivalent, permettant sa continuité juridique et opérationnelle.
• Ce processus protège l’intégrité contractuelle et l’historique du fonds, évitant les lourdeurs d’une liquidation.

L’analyse complète est disponible dans l’épisode « SCSp et Mobilité Transfrontalière ».

Nous vous invitons également à vous abonner à notre chaîne YouTube BERTRAND MARIAUX AVOCATS.

Apple Podcasts : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scsp-et-mobilit%C3%A9-transfrontali%C3%A8re/id1824719233?i=1000731895846

Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Znqh2TNlA1k3x49eKT2fe

YouTube (BERTRAND MARIAUX AVOCATS) : https://youtu.be/MOgMtG6RHu0

YouTube (Rigore Media) : https://youtu.be/MnfnLcse1UM

#Luxembourg #InvestmentFunds #Finance #AssetManagement #Podcast #LuxembourgFundcast #FinancialRegulation #SCSp #CrossBorderMobility #CorporateLaw #DroitDesSociétés