Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg, 2025-10-15, n° TAL-2023-06170 (TALCH08)

Jugement civil n° 2025TALCH08/00160 Audience publique du mercredi, 15 octobre 2025. Numéro du rôle : TAL-2023-06170 Composition : Sandra ALVES ROUSSADO, vice-présidente, Hannes WESTENDORF, premier juge, Elodie DA COSTA, juge, Guy BONIFAS, greffier.

ENTRE

PERSONNE1.), banquier, demeurant au ADRESSE1.), partie demanderesse aux termes d'un exploit de l'huissier de justice suppléant Max GLODÉ, en remplacement de l'huissier de justice Pierre BIEL de Luxembourg du 7 juillet 2023, comparaissant par Maître Benoît ENTRINGER, avocat, demeurant à Luxembourg,

ET

PERSONNE2.), avocat à la Cour, établi à L-ADRESSE2.), partie défenderesse aux fins du prédit exploit GLODÉ, comparaissant par la société SCHILTZ & SCHILTZ S.A., représentée par Maître Franz SCHILTZ, avocat, demeurant à Luxembourg.

LE TRIBUNAL

1. Faits constants Par courrier du 16 mars 2020, la SOCIETE1.) a informé PERSONNE1.) de son intention de lui retirer pour l’avenir l’agrément qu’elle lui avait accordé : « Dear Sir, We refer to your declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 submitted to the SOCIETE1.) (the “SOCIETE2.)”) in relation to the request for approval of your appointment as member of the board of directors of SOCIETE3.) S.A., set up as specialised investment fund under the amended law dated 13 February 2007 relating to specialised investment funds (the “law dated 13 February 2007”). In this context, we revert back to our exchanges of correspondence in relation to the aforesaid request for approval regarding a prior version of your declaration of honour dated 19 September 2018 that had been submitted to the SOCIETE2.) and with regard to which the SOCIETE2.) had to intervene with regard to the completeness of such initial declaration of honour and notably by our letter dated 28 November 2018 (O/Ref.: NUMERO1.)). We further asked you in our letter dated 28 November 2018 to provide the SOCIETE2.) “a duly updated declaration of honour including said information as well as any other information the SOCIETE2.) would expect notice of in this regard” and we reiterated this request in our letter dated 5 December 2018 (O/Ref.: NUMERO2.)). In this context, we took note of your updated declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 in order to assess the authorization request relating to your appointment as member of the board of directors of the Luxembourg based investment company LFP I SICAV SIF S.A. and on which we based our assessment underlying our letter dated 6 December 2018 (O/Ref.: NUMERO3.)) informing you that we had no objections regarding the aforementioned appointment. However, the SOCIETE2.) - in its capacity as prudential supervisory authority exercising its legal mission of prudential supervision —notes that the declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 is incorrect with regard to the statement “never having been or currently not being a director, manager or shareholder of an entity that has been subject or is currently subject to investigations, enforcement proceedings or sanctions by a supervisory authority (including the SOCIETE2.))”. By decisions taken by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority(“SOCIETE4.)”) on 21 January 2014, which were duly notified to you in your capacity as director of the concerned mutual fonds, the SOCIETE4.) has cancelled the registration of the mutual funds “SOCIETE5.)” and “SOCIETE4.)”. SOCIETE4.) took such decisions upon breaches by the said mutual funds, for which you acted as director, of various legal requirements under the law of the Cayman Islands. These breaches were related to the

2

preparation and submission of audited accounts over years, respectively to the failure to pay annual fees over more than 10 years and the failure to have a registered office pursuant to the applicable Companies law. With regard to the foregoing, we retain that, despite our said letters dated 28 November 2018 and 5 December 2018, you have submitted an incorrect declaration of honour and that you have not disclosed the enforcement decisions adopted by a supervisory authority with regard to mutual funds for which you acted as director, although you necessarily had to be aware of these decisions and that the form of the declaration of honour you had to establish in the context of your authorization request explicitly requires to indicate such information and that such information has a direct impact on the assessment of your professional repute and properness. The SOCIETE2.) concludes that you have not submitted complete and transparent information to the SOCIETE2.) in the context of the request for approval relating to your appointment as director of the Luxembourg based investment company SOCIETE6.) S.A.. This wrongful conduct is amplified by the fact that your conduct is observed despite our exchange of correspondence relating to the said authorization request and notably our letters dated 28 November 2018 and 5 December 2018. In this respect, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that, according to article 42 (3) of the law dated 13 February 2007, “[t]he directors of the specialised investment fund [...] must be of sufficiently good repute and have sufficient experience, also in relation to the type of the specialised investment fund concerned" and their appointment “is subject to approval by the SOCIETE2.)”, being understood that “"Directors" shall mean, [...J in the case of partnerships limited by shares, the managing general partner(s)”. To this end, any documents or information of any nature, including but not limited to previous criminal records or information regarding past or actual pending proceedings, and in particular the declaration of honour, which tend to show that the person concerned is of good repute and properness and offers all guarantee of irreproachable business conduct are taken into consideration by the SOCIETE2.) while assessing professional repute and properness, as what is at stake is the protection of the public interest which it is the SOCIETE2.) mission to ensure. In particular, good professional repute and properness are required for the purpose of ensuring public trust and confidence in entities under the supervision of the SOCIETE2.) and good reputation and trustworthiness of the Luxembourg financial centre. This requirement means also that the person concerned presents all guarantees of irreproachable conduct, both professionally and personally, allowing him/her to ensure the sound and prudent management of an entity supervised by the SOCIETE2.), as a director or manager thereof. Therefore, past and present professional activity of an individual is a substantial element on the basis of which his/her repute and properness can be measured and assessed, as part of the approval process, keeping in mind the future professional activity in Luxembourg for which he/she is applying. In that sense, criteria and conditions are used to consider that a director or manager of a supervised entity does or does not meet sufficiently good professional repute and properness to fulfil his/her role in any 3

particular case. So, examples provided by the SOCIETE7.) final report on Fit and Proper Assessment – Best Practice to illustrate situations in which an individual does not fulfil good repute and properness requirements include “lack of willingness to comply with legal obligations, regulatory requirements or professional standards or [being] obstructive, misleading or untruthful in dealing with regulatory bodies or a court; [being] reprimanded, or disqualified, or removed by a professional or regulatory body in relation to matters relating to the person‘s honesty, integrity or business conduct; [being] subject of civil or criminal proceedings or enforcement action, in relation to the management of an entity, or commercial or professional activities, which were determined adversely to the person (including by the person consenting to an order or direction, or giving an undertaking, not to engage in unlawful or improper conduct) and which reflected adversely on the person’s competence, diligence, judgment, honesty or integrity" (https7/MEDIA1.)). These criteria are confirmed at the European level in the Joint SOCIETE8.) (“SOCIETE8.)”) and SOCIETE9.) (“SOCIETE10.)”) Guidelines on the assessment of suitability of members of the management body and key function holders (NUMERO4.)) (See section 8, paragraphs 73 to 78). We further remind you that it is of primary importance that the information provided to the SOCIETE2.), especially in a declaration of honour, are complete and sincere. Making a false statement is contrary to the requirements of professional ethics and loyalty that the SOCIETE2.) expects from a manager or a director within the financial sector. The purpose of the declaration of honour is to establish and confirm a relationship based on trust and loyalty between the manager or director of a supervised entity and the supervisory authority. As you know, all natural or legal persons to be approved by the SOCIETE2.) have to sign a declaration of honour before being authorised. By signing such a declaration of honour, the person signing the declaration acknowledges and explicitly accepts that “if this declaration of honour becomes or is incorrect, his/her professional propriety/repute shall be compromised. In all European jurisdictions, and having regard to the aforementioned Joint SOCIETE8.) and SOCIETE11.), an incomplete or incorrect declaration of honour submitted in the context of an application for an authorisation puts seriously in doubt the good repute and properness of the concerned person. Moreover, by signing a declaration of honour, the undersigned “commits to deal with the SOCIETE2.) in an open and cooperative way and to disclose appropriately and actively any information of which the SOCIETE2.) would reasonably expect notice". Based on its own assessment of the facts observed with regard to your declaration of honour and more particularly the fact that you repeatedly provided incorrect information to the SOCIETE2.) in your initial and updated declarations of honour submitted to the SOCIETE2.), the SOCIETE2.) considers that these are such as to establish a lack of probity, integrity and professionalism in performing your professional activities which could put into doubt your professional repute and properness. The SOCIETE2.) takes the view that such behaviour is not in line with the expected requirements of professional ethics and loyalty and would thus impede a relationship based on trust and loyalty between a director or manager of a supervised entity and the supervisory authority. Further the SOCIETE2.) retains, on the basis of the foregoing, that your actions raise serious doubt as to your ability, as manager of a supervised entity, to guarantee the sound and prudent management thereof. 4

In the light of the above, the SOCIETE2.) hereby notifies you its intention to retain that you do no longer fulfil the legal requirements with respect to professional properness set out within article 42 (3) of the law dated 13 February 2007. The said decision would apply to a period of four (4) years. With regard to the foregoing, the SOCIETE2.) will retain that you are no longer suitable for any mandate subject to the SOCIETE2.)’s approval and you may therefore no longer intervene in the context of a regulated entity falling under the supervision of the SOCIETE2.). The SOCIETE2.) intends to publish its decision retaining that you do no longer fulfil the legal requirements with respect to professional properness for a period of 4 years on the basis of Article 43, paragraph (1) of the law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, since the SOCIETE2.) considers that public interest warrants such publication of its measure in the context of the present file. Indeed, publicity would be in the public interest in aiming mainly to protect the trustworthiness of the Luxembourg financial center. Finally, in accordance with the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 8 June 1979 on the procedure to be followed by administrations governed by the State and the municipalities (noncontentious administrative procedure), you may take up a position regarding the present letter within fifteen (15) days to date upon the receipt of the present letter. » Par décision du 13 mai 2020, la SOCIETE1.) a décidé qu’il ne pouvait plus exercer un mandat soumis à son autorisation pendant une durée de quatre ans : « (...) We refer to the registered letters dated 16 March 2020 (O/Ref.: NUMERO5.)) and 6 April 2020 (O/Ref: NUMERO6.)), notified to you and delivered by bailiff related to the reassessment and review, by the SOCIETE1.) ("SOCIETE2.)"), of your professional properness and repute, that is your suitability as regards reputation, honesty and integrity as further described in the said letter dated 16 March 2020 and in the SOCIETE7.) final report on Fit and Proper Assessment - Best Practice, respectively in the Joint SOCIETE8.) ("SOCIETE8.)") and SOCIETE9.) ("SOCIETE10.)") Guidelines on the assessment of suitability of members of the management body and key function holders (NUMERO7.)) (the "Joint SOCIETE8.) and SOCIETE11.)"). In this context, we have duly taken into account your e-mail dated 26 March 2020, including your letter dated the same day and other attachments to which you refer therein, as well as your e-mail dated 21 April 2020 and your letter dated the same day attached thereto. Upon your request, a conference call was further organized on 27 April 2020, in accordance with Article 9 of the Grand-ducal Regulation relating to the non-contentious administrative procedure ("procédure administrative non-contentieuse"), between Mr PERSONNE3.), Ms PERSONNE4.) and Ms PERSONNE5.) from our Commission and your person, during which you were given the opportunity to raise, in addition to your aforesaid letters and e-mails, your observations regarding the SOCIETE2.)'s intention with respect to your professional properness and repute. 5

After having duly assessed all the factual and legal elements you have provided to the SOCIETE2.) in response to the abovementioned letters dated 16 March 2020 and 6 April 2020, we retain the following:

1. With regard to the submission of your declaration of honour In its letter dated 16 March 2020, the SOCIETE2.) referred to your declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 submitted to the SOCIETE2.) as part of the request for approval of your appointment as member of the board of directors of the Luxembourg based investment company SOCIETE6.) S.A. (the "SOCIETE12.)”), set up as specialised investment fund under the amended law dated 13 February 2007 relating to specialised investment funds (the "law dated 13 February 2007"). The said declaration of honour was submitted to the SOCIETE2.) further to exchanges of correspondence in relation to the aforesaid request for approval regarding a prior version of your declaration of honour dated 19 September 2018 that had been submitted to the SOCIETE2.) and with regard to which the SOCIETE2.) had to intervene with regard to the completeness of such initial declaration of honour, notably by a letter dated 28 November 2018 (O/Ref.: NUMERO8.)). We further asked you in this letter dated 28 November 2018 to provide the SOCIETE2.) "a duly updated declaration of honour including said information as well as any other information the SOCIETE2.) would expect notice of in this regard" and we reiterated this request in a letter dated 5 December 2018 (O/Ref: NUMERO9.)). In this context, we took note of your updated declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 in order to assess the authorization request relating to your appointment as member of the board of directors of the SOCIETE12.), and the SOCIETE2.) based thereon the assessment underlying the letter dated 6 December 2018 (O/Ref: NUMERO10.)) informing you that the SOCIETE2.) had no objections regarding the aforementioned appointment. By the above referred letter dated 16 March 2020, you were informed that the SOCIETE2.) - in its capacity as prudential supervisory authority exercising its legal mission of prudential supervision - noted that the declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 is incorrect with regard to the statement "never having been or currently not being a director, manager or shareholder of an entity that has been subject or is currently subject to investigations, enforcement proceedings or sanctions by a supervisory authority (including the SOCIETE2.)) It was retained that, by decisions taken by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority ("SOCIETE4.)") on 21 January 2014, which were duly notified to you in your capacity as director of the concerned mutual funds, the SOCIETE4.) has cancelled the registration of the mutual funds “SOCIETE5.)” and “SOCIETE4.)” (the "SOCIETE4.)"), and that SOCIETE4.) took such decisions upon breaches by the said funds, for which you acted as director, of various legal requirements under the law of the Cayman Islands. These breaches were related to the preparation and submission of audited accounts over years, respectively to the failure to pay annual fees over more 6

than 10 years and the failure to have a registered office pursuant to the applicable Companies law. With regard to the foregoing, it was retained in this letter dated 16 March 2020 that, despite the above referred letters dated 28 November 2018 and 5 December 2018, you have submitted an incorrect declaration of honour to the SOCIETE2.) as you have not disclosed the enforcement decisions adopted by a supervisory authority with regard to the SOCIETE4.) for which you acted as director, although you necessarily had to be aware of these decisions. Indeed the form of the declaration of honour you had to establish in the context of your authorization request explicitly requires to indicate such information as it has a direct impact on the assessment of your professional repute and properness. In response to the letter dated 16 March 2020, you informed the SOCIETE2.) by your letter dated 26 March 2020 that you "resigned from SOCIETE14.) in October 2002 (attached divorce court report), resigned as director of all the funds (including the two mentioned in your [our] letter) and closed down or transferred them all to 3rd parties". You further explained that you do not hold any records of your resignations but that you submitted them to "the divorce courts as evidence", and you provided the SOCIETE2.) with a copy of the Court decision with none of the exhibits mentioned therein. You added in your said letter recalling that "only Shimoda Alliance Fund survived, re-branded as another firm's fund. The colleague who took over the Shimoda Group (and the funds) wound down funds, de-registered vehicles" and to your "best knowledge confirmed as such to the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority ("SOCIETE4.)")". Attached to your e-mail dated 26 March 2020, you provided the SOCIETE2.) with the two warning notices dated 19 November 2013 as well as with the two decision notices dated 21 January 2014 which you received from that SOCIETE4.) in your capacity as director of the SOCIETE4.). In its warning notices dated 19 November 2013, SOCIETE4.) writes to you "in your capacity as Directors of the Fund” and retains that "you were requested to rectify the breaches or submit appropriate proposal for bringing the Fund into compliance with the Mutual Funds Law" and that "no satisfactory response has been submitted". Then in its decision notices dated 21 January 2014 addressed to you in the same capacity, SOCIETE4.) retains that the SOCIETE4.) remain in breach with the Mutual Funds Law "for failing to prepare and submit audited accounts to the Authority from 31 December 2003 to 2012, and for failing to pay its annual fee for the years 2004 to 2014", and in breach of the Company Law "for failing to have a registered office". Hence, by means of an "Authority's decision", SOCIETE4.) respectively cancelled the registration of each of the SOCIETE4.) because "despite repeated requests, the Fund has been unable to become compliant with the Law and satisfy the Authority's termination requirements". Having reviewed and considered the information you provided the SOCIETE2.) with, we conclude that, at the time of the submission of your declarations of honour to the SOCIETE2.), you were fully aware of the enforcement proceedings initiated by the SOCIETE4.) against the SOCIETE4.) for which the SOCIETE4.) clearly considered that you acted as director in 2013 and 2014.

7

Therefore we have to conclude that, despite our aforesaid letters dated 28 November 2018 and 5 December 2018, you have submitted an incorrect declaration of honour to the SOCIETE2.) as you have not disclosed the enforcement decisions adopted by a supervisory authority with regard to mutual funds for which you acted as director, although you confirm having been aware of these enforcement proceedings, and as the form of the declaration of honour you had to establish in the context of your authorization request explicitly requires to indicate such information which would have been duly considered by the SOCIETE2.) in order to assess your professional repute and properness. 2. With regard to the updating of your declaration of honour In addition to the elements already raised in the aforementioned letter dated 16 March 2020 in the context of the reassessment and review of your professional properness and repute, the above referred letter dated 6 April 2020 was notified to you. In this letter dated 6 April 2020, it was referred to a summons to court ("assignation en justice") before the Luxembourg District Court sitting in commercial matters which was filed by investors of the SOCIETE12.) against the current members of the Board of Directors of the SOCIETE12.), and thus against your person, setting out and describing alleged acts of threats, defamation and extortion, among others. In this regard, it was retained that you did not inform the SOCIETE2.) about such summons to court, despite the commitments you have taken by signing your declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018, notably "to deal with the SOCIETE2.) in an open and cooperative way and to disclose appropriately and actively any information of which the SOCIETE2.) would reasonably expect notice". By your letter dated 21 April 2020, in response to the aforesaid letter dated 6 April 2020 and the request to take up a position regarding the said omission to inform the SOCIETE2.) appropriately, you informed us that "we [the members of the board of directors of the SOCIETE12.)] were aware that our legal counsel was speaking to the SOCIETE2.) the day we [the members of the board of directors of the SOCIETE12.)] received the complaint, and were led to understand that he was addressing this with you [the SOCIETE2.)]." In this context, and taking into account the information you provided in this respect to the SOCIETE2.) during the conference call held on 27 April 2020, we retain that, by referring to "our [your] legal counsel", you refer to the law firm acting as legal adviser of the SOCIETE12.). However, we have not identified any information provided to the SOCIETE2.) by your legal counsel regarding the said summons to court, nor have you provided the SOCIETE2.) with an evidence in this regard, although the communication with the SOCIETE2.) with regard to the SOCIETE12.) is mainly organised by e-mail or mail, and as the case may be, in addition, by verbal communications by means of telephone conversations.

8

Therefore we have to conclude that, despite the commitments you have taken by signing your declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018 - notably "to deal with the SOCIETE2.) in an open and cooperative way and to disclose appropriately and actively any information of which the SOCIETE2.) would reasonably expect notice" you have not appropriately disclosed the summons to court ("assignation en justice") before the Luxembourg District Court sitting in commercial matters filed against your person, setting out and describing alleged acts of threats, defamation and extortion, among others. In this respect, we have to stress that, as an approved person by the SOCIETE2.) and by signing the declaration of honour, you had a personal obligation to inform the SOCIETE2.) without delay and/or to ensure that any relevant information changing an element covered by the said declaration of honour is shared with the SOCIETE2.) in due time. Indeed, by signing the declaration of honour, you further committed "to inform the SOCIETE2.) without delay in case one of the elements covered by this declaration was to change in the future". Hence, we retain that the said summons to court modifies the declaration of honour you made on 5 December 2018, according to which you declared "c) never having had any criminal records relating to my activities, nor having been subject to (...) any civil/administrative proceedings and disciplinary measures relating to my activities (including disqualification as a company director and/or in relation with bankruptcy, insolvency or similar procedures) nor currently being subject to any such investigation, proceedings or measures described above".

In light of the above, the SOCIETE2.) concludes that you have not submitted complete and transparent information to the SOCIETE2.) in the context of the request for approval relating to your appointment as director of the SOCIETE12.) and that you did not appropriately inform the SOCIETE2.) of the summons to court despite the commitments you have taken by signing your declaration of honour dated 5 December 2018. This wrongful conduct is amplified by the fact that your conduct is observed despite our exchange of correspondence relating to the said authorization request and notably our letters dated 28 November 2018 and 5 December 2018. Hence it has to be retained that you repeatedly have withheld crucial information from the SOCIETE2.) in the context of its mission of prudential supervision. In this respect, we draw your attention to the fact that, according to article 42 (3) of the law dated 13 February 2007, "the directors of the specialised investment fund [...] must be of sufficiently good repute and have sufficient experience, also in relation to the type of the specialised investment fund concerned" and their appointment "is subject to approval by the SOCIETE2.)", being understood that " Directors" shall mean, in the case of public limited companies [...], the members of the board of directors".

9

To this end, any documents or information of any nature, including but not limited to previous criminal records or information regarding past or actual pending proceedings, and in particular the declaration of honour, which tend to show that the person concerned is of good repute and properness and offers all guarantee of irreproachable business conduct are taken into consideration by the SOCIETE2.) while assessing or reassessing professional repute and properness, as what is at stake is the protection of the public interest which it is the SOCIETE2.) mission to ensure. In particular, good professional repute and properness are required for the purpose of ensuring public trust and confidence in entities under the supervision of the SOCIETE2.) and good reputation and trustworthiness of the Luxembourg financial center. This requirement means also that the person concerned presents all guarantees of irreproachable conduct, both professionally and personally, allowing him/her to ensure the sound and prudent management of an entity supervised by the SOCIETE2.), as a director or manager thereof. Therefore, past and present professional activity of an individual is a substantial element on the basis of which his/her repute and properness can be measured and assessed, as part of the approval process and on an ongoing basis, keeping in mind the (future) professional activity in Luxembourg. In that sense, criteria and conditions are used to consider that a director or manager of a supervised entity does or does not meet sufficiently good professional repute and properness to fulfil his/her role in any particular case. So, examples provided by the SOCIETE7.) final report on Fit and Proper Assessment - Best Practice to illustrate situations in which an individual does not fulfil good repute and properness requirements include "lack of willingness to comply with legal obligations, regulatory requirements or professional standards or [being] obstructive, misleading or untruthful in dealing with regulatory bodies or a court; [being] reprimanded, or disqualified, or removed by a professional or regulatory body in relation to matters relating to the person's honesty, integrity or business conduct; [being] subject of civil or criminal proceedings or enforcement action, in relation to the management of an entity, or commercial or professional activities, which were determined adversely to the person (including by the person consenting to an order or direction, or giving an undertaking, not to engage in unlawful or improper conduct) and which reflected adversely on the person's competence, diligence, judgment, honesty or integrity" (MEDIA1.)). These criteria are confirmed at the European level in (he Joint SOCIETE8.) and SOCIETE11.) (See section 8, paragraphs 73 to 78). We further remind you that it is of primary importance that the information provided to the SOCIETE2.), especially in a declaration of honour, are complete and sincere. Making a false statement is contrary to the requirements of professional ethics and loyalty that the SOCIETE2.) expects from a manager or a director within the financial sector. The purpose of the declaration of honour is to establish and confirm a relationship based on trust and loyalty between the manager or director of a supervised entity and the supervisory authority. As you know, all natural or legal persons to be approved by the SOCIETE2.) have to sign a declaration of honour before being authorised. By signing such a declaration of honour, the person signing the declaration acknowledges and explicitly accepts that "if this declaration of honour becomes or is incorrect, his/her professional propriety/repute shall be compromised". 10

In all European jurisdictions, and having regard to the aforementioned Joint SOCIETE8.) and SOCIETE11.), an incomplete or incorrect declaration of honour submitted in the context of an application for an authorisation puts seriously in doubt the good repute and properness of the concerned person. Moreover, by signing a declaration of honour, the undersigned "commits to deal with the SOCIETE2.) in an open and cooperative way and to disclose appropriately and actively any information of which the SOCIETE2.) would reasonably expect notice". Based on its own assessment of the facts observed with regard to your declaration of honour and more particularly the fact that you repeatedly provided incorrect information to the SOCIETE2.) in your initial and updated declarations of honour submitted to the SOCIETE2.), the SOCIETE2.) considers that these are such as to establish a lack of probity, integrity and professionalism in performing your professional activities which put into doubt your professional repute and properness. The SOCIETE2.) takes the view that such behaviour is not in line with the expected requirements of professional ethics and loyalty and thus impedes a relationship based on trust and loyalty between a director or manager of a supervised entity and the supervisory authority. Further the SOCIETE2.) retains, on the basis of the foregoing, that your actions raise serious doubt as to your ability, as manager of a supervised entity, to guarantee the sound and prudent management thereof. After having duly considered all the elements and information provided to the SOCIETE2.) in the context of the reassessment of your suitability (professional properness and repute), notified to you by the abovementioned letters dated 16 March 2020 and 6 April 2020, the SOCIETE2.) hereby notifies you its decision to retain that you do no longer fulfil the legal requirements with respect to professional properness set out within article 42 (3) of the law dated 13 February 2007. The said decision applies to a period of four (4) years. With regard to the foregoing, the SOCIETE2.) retains that you are no longer suitable for any mandate subject to the SOCIETE2.)'s approval and that you may therefore no longer intervene in the context of a regulated entity falling under the supervision of the SOCIETE2.).

The SOCIETE2.) also decides to publish on a nominative basis its administrative decision retaining that you do no longer fulfil the legal requirements with respect to professional properness for a period of four (4) years on the basis of Article 43 (1) of the law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, since the SOCIETE2.) considers that public interest warrants such publication of its measure in the context of the present file. Indeed, publicity is in the public interest in aiming mainly to protect the trustworthiness of the Luxembourg financial center. (...) » PERSONNE1.) a alors chargé Maître PERSONNE6.) en vue d’introduire un recours contentieux contre cette décision administrative.

11

Cette dernière a déposé sa requête le 6 août 2020 au greffe du Tribunal administratif. Elle a signifié son recours contentieux à la SOCIETE1.) le 24 septembre 2020. Le 7 octobre 2020, PERSONNE1.) a encore fait déposer devant le Tribunal administratif une requête tendant au relevé de la déchéance résultant de l’expiration du délai lui imparti pour procéder à la signification de son recours contentieux du 6 août 2020 à la SOCIETE2.), sinon au relevé de forclusion du délai de recours de trois mois contre ladite décision du 13 mai 2020. Par jugement du 30 octobre 2020 (n° 45069 du rôle), le Tribunal administratif s’est déclaré matériellement incompétent pour connaître de la demande en relevé de déchéance résultant de l’expiration du délai d’un mois imparti pour la signification à la SOCIETE2.) du recours en réformation, sinon en annulation de la décision du 13 mai 2020 à cette dernière, à partir du dépôt au greffe du tribunal administratif dudit recours, et a déclaré la demande en relevé de forclusion du délai de recours de trois mois contre ladite décision irrecevable au motif qu’un recours contentieux avait été déposé dans les délais légaux. Par jugement du 10 décembre 2021, le tribunal administratif a déclaré caduc le recours introduit sous le numéroNUMERO11.) du rôle. Le tribunal a retenu, en application de l’article 4, paragraphe (2), de la loi modifiée du 21 juin 1999 portant règlement de procédure devant les juridictions administratives, prévoyant que la partie demanderesse doit faire signifier la requête introductive d’instance à la partie défenderesse dans le délai d’un mois sous peine de caducité, que le recours avait été signifié en dehors du délai légal d’un mois et que les problèmes de santé et personnels du litismandataire du demandeur n’étaient pas de nature à invalider le constat de caducité. Ce jugement a été confirmé par la Cour administrative le 3 mai 2022 (arrêt n° 46.893C). 2. Procédure Par exploit d’huissier du 7 juillet 2023, PERSONNE1.), comparaissant par Maître Benoît ENTRINGER, a assigné Maître PERSONNE6.) devant le tribunal de ce siège. La société SCHILTZ & SCHILTZ S.A., représentée par Maître Franz SCHILTZ, avocat, s’est constituée pour Maître PERSONNE6.) le 11 juillet 2023. L’affaire a été inscrite sous le numéro TAL-2023-06170 du rôle. Elle a été soumise à l’instruction de la 8e section. L’instruction a été clôturée par voie d’ordonnance du 2 avril 2025 et l’affaire a été renvoyée à l’audience du 18 juin 2025 pour plaidoiries. L’affaire a été prise en délibéré à la même date. 3. Prétentions et moyens des parties 3.1.

PERSONNE1.)

12

PERSONNE1.) demande, sous le bénéfice de l’exécution provisoire, de condamner Maître PERSONNE6.) à lui payer la somme de :  4.741.000.- euros au titre de l’indemnisation du préjudice matériel subi, avec les intérêts légaux à partir de la demande en justice,  50.000.- euros au titre de l’indemnisation du préjudice moral subi, avec les intérêts légaux à partir de la demande en justice, et de dire que les intérêts sont augmentés de 3 points à l’expiration du délai de trois mois à compter de la signification du jugement. Il demande en outre de condamner Maître PERSONNE6.) aux frais et dépens de l’instance, avec distraction au profit de Maître Benoît ENTRINGER qui la demande, affirmant en avoir fait l’avance et à lui payer une indemnité de procédure de 3.000.euros sur le fondement de l’article 240 du Nouveau Code de procédure civile. PERSONNE1.) considère que la décision de la SOCIETE1.) ne reposait pas sur une base légale solide, mais sur des « motifs controuvés, et pour tout dire, ad hominem ». Maître PERSONNE6.) aurait introduit un recours contre la décision dans le délai légal de trois mois, mais elle aurait omis de faire signifier la requête à la SOCIETE1.) dans le délai légal d’un mois. La faute de Maître PERSONNE6.) serait incontestable. Cette faute entraînerait son dommage qui consisterait en la perte de la chance de voir réformer, sinon annuler la décision de la SOCIETE1.). Il considère que les arguments de la SOCIETE1.) pour retirer son agrément ne seraient pas sérieux. Quant au reproche d’avoir omis de l’informer dans ses deux déclarations sur l’honneur à propos d’une décision prise en 2014 par la SOCIETE4.), il fait valoir qu’aucune décision s’apparentant de près ou de loin à une mesure disciplinaire ou à un retrait d’agrément n’aurait jamais été prise à son encontre par la SOCIETE4.). Sa déclaration sur l’honneur aurait été en tous points complète et véridique. Il n’aurait eu aucune obligation d’informer la SOCIETE1.) de ce que la SOCIETE4.) aurait mal géré ses dossiers. Quant au reproche d’avoir omis de lui indiquer qu’il faisait l’objet d’une assignation en justice de la part de certains investisseurs, il fait valoir que ce reproche serait aberrant, dans la mesure où il aurait informé lui-même la SOCIETE1.) de cette assignation. La sanction de la SOCIETE1.) serait dès lors illégale puisqu’elle reposerait sur des allégations fausses, car PERSONNE1.) aurait informé la SOCIETE1.). L'assignation en question aurait aussi visé deux autres administrateurs, mais ces derniers ne se seraient pas vus retirer leur agrément. La SOCIETE1.) aurait ainsi « fait feu de tout bois pour nuire à PERSONNE1.) ». Il demande encore comment la SOCIETE1.), non visée par cette assignation, aurait pu avoir connaissance de l’assignation du 20 mars 2020 dès le 6 avril 2020 si elle n’en avait pas été informée par les défendeurs ou leur avocat. Comment la SOCIETE1.) pourrait-elle affirmer que PERSONNE1.) aurait l’obligation de l’informer d’une procédure dont elle aurait eu connaissance plus ou moins 13

immédiatement ? Ce serait absurde. On ne saurait reprocher à PERSONNE1.) d’avoir attendu quinze jours pour informer la SOCIETE1.), dans la mesure où il aurait dû consulter son avocat sur le sens de l’assignation afin de décider s’il était nécessaire d’en informer la SOCIETE1.), aucun délai n’étant prévu par la loi ou la déclaration sur l’honneur. PERSONNE1.) prétend qu’il aurait eu d’excellentes chances de succès devant les juridictions administratives. Quant au préjudice, il fait valoir ce qui suit : Sa rémunération annuelle de director de SOCIETE15.) S.A. aurait été de 36.000.- euros, la perte engendrée serait ainsi de 156.000.- euros. Il aurait également exercé pour le même fonds les fonctions d’alternative investment fund manager. Il aurait également dû renoncer à tous les autres mandants en raison de la publicité de la décision de la SOCIETE1.). Il aurait été independent director d’un fonds d’investissement australien dénommé SOCIETE16.) rémunéré 30.000.- USD par mois pendant trois ans. En cette qualité, il aurait été lanceur d’alerte dans le cadre d’un scandale dit SOCIETE17.) où il aurait dénoncé les malversations de la banque SOCIETE18.). Son rôle aurait été salué par la presse américaine. Il aurait donc pu s’attendre à se voir offrir de nombreux mandats d’administrateur au cours des années à venir. En raison de la décision de la SOCIETE1.), il serait obligé d’indiquer qu’il ne serait plus en mesure d’exercer de telles fonctions. Sa demande indemnitaire ne serait donc pas exagérée. 3.2.

Maître PERSONNE6.)

Maître PERSONNE6.) se rapporte à prudence de justice quant à la recevabilité de la demande en la forme et quant au délai.

Sur le fond, elle demande le rejet en ce qu’il n’y aurait pas de responsabilité en son chef. Elle conteste l’existence d’une perte de chances réelles et sérieuses dans le chef de PERSONNE1.) qui ne prouverait pas de telles chances de voir réformer la décision de la SOCIETE1.) du 13 mai 2020. Elle conteste encore l’existence d’un préjudice dans le chef de PERSONNE1.), le quantum n’en étant pas établi. Elle se réserve tous les droits à l’égard du Director Services Agreeement versé par PERSONNE1.) à l’appui de ses conclusions du 18 septembre 2024. Elle demande aussi de condamner PERSONNE1.) aux frais et dépens de l’instance, avec distraction au profit de Maître Franz SCHILTZ qui la demande, affirmant en avoir fait l’avance et à lui payer une indemnité de procédure de 5.000.- euros sur le fondement de l’article 240 du Nouveau Code de procédure civile. 14

Il appartiendrait à PERSONNE1.) de prouver concrètement qu’il aurait eu des chances réelles et sérieuses de voir aboutir son recours contre la décision de la SOCIETE1.) du 13 mai 2020. Or, PERSONNE1.) ne produirait même pas à l’appui de son assignation le recours administratif en vue d’obtenir la réformation de la décision de la SOCIETE1.) du 13 mai 2020. Quant au premier motif invoqué par la SOCIETE1.), il résulterait clairement des éléments de fait que PERSONNE1.) aurait été administrateur des fonds Shimoda au moment de la sanction de la part de la SOCIETE4.). Le fait que le fonds litigieux n’aurait plus eu d’activité après 2002 ou 2003 importerait peu. En effet, dans son courrier de 2014, la SOCIETE4.) aurait bien reproché aux directeurs dont PERSONNE1.) de ne pas avoir mis le fonds en conformité avec les exigences légales même après de multiples demandes de sa part. La prétendue absence d’activité du fonds n’exonérerait pas les administrateurs de leurs obligations. Ils auraient dû rester diligents et remplir leurs obligations légales. Indépendamment de la question de savoir si ce fonds avait cessé son activité, il resterait que la SOCIETE4.) se serait adressée à deux reprises à PERSONNE1.) pour lui signifier que les fonds en question resteraient en violation de la loi pour avoir omis de préparer et de soumettre à la SOCIETE4.) des comptes vérifiés entre le 31 décembre 2002 et la date de la liquidation et avoir omis de payer la redevance annuelle pour les exercices 2004 à 2014 et pour ne pas avoir de siège social. Dans ses déclarations sur l’honneur datant de 2018, PERSONNE1.) n’aurait pas divulgué ces décisions de la SOCIETE4.). Quant aux attestations testimoniales produites, Maître PERSONNE6.) remet en cause leur impartialité. Quant à l’assignation datant du 20 mars 2020, Maître PERSONNE6.) fait valoir que l’absence d’information sans délai du régulateur constituerait une violation de ses obligations. Subsidiairement, et quant aux demandes indemnitaires de PERSONNE1.), Maître PERSONNE6.) fait valoir que l’ensemble des préjudices ne sont ni établis ni documentés, voire complètement hypothétiques. 4. Motifs de la décision Le tribunal précise qu’en application de l’article 194, alinéa 2, du Nouveau Code de procédure civile, il n’y a lieu de statuer que sur les dernières conclusions notifiées et les prétentions et moyens non repris dans les conclusions de synthèse sont réputées abandonnées (Cour d’appel, 29 avril 2025, n° 76/25, n° CAL-2018-01068 du rôle). Des formules de renvoi ou de référence à des écritures précédentes étant dépourvues de portée (Cour d’appel, 18 mars 2025, n° 55/25, n° CAL-2024-00185 du rôle), le tribunal 15

PAR CES MOTIFS

le tribunal d'arrondissement de et à Luxembourg, huitième chambre, siégeant en matière civile, statuant contradictoirement, dit les demandes de PERSONNE1.) recevables, les dit non fondées, rejette les demandes de PERSONNE1.), d’une part, et de PERSONNE6.), d’autre part, en paiement d’une indemnité de procédure sur le fondement de l’article 240 du Nouveau Code de procédure civile, dit qu’il n’y a pas lieu à exécution provisoire du présent jugement, déboute de toute autre demande comme non fondée, condamne PERSONNE1.) aux frais et dépens de l’instance, avec distraction au profit de la société SCHILTZ & SCHILTZ S.A., représentée par Maître Franz SCHILTZ, qui la demande affirmant en avoir fait l’avance.

20