Agefi Luxembourg - février 2026

AGEFI Luxembourg 12 Février 2026 Économie C ’est dans les salons de l’Hôtel BelleVue (groupeGoeres) que EcofinClubLuxem- bourg recevait, fin janvier dernier, EmnaRekik (portrait), Country LeadLuxembourg chez JLL. Après plusieurs années de turbu- lences marquées notamment par l’inflation et la hausse des taux d’intérêt, les acteurs du secteur de l’immobilier de bureaux doivent désormais naviguer dans un envi- ronnement plus complexe, « mais riche en opportunités » note l’ora- trice.Entreurgenceclimatique,explo- sion de l’intelligence artificielle et exigencecroissantedebien-êtredessa- lariés, le marché est appelé à se trans- former enprofondeur. Aujourd’hui, poursuit Rekik, « lapriorité absoluedes entreprises se focalise sur l’efficacité opérationnelle, avecuneoptimisationconstantedes espacespour ré- duire les coûts. »Parallèlement, le secteur fait face à une pénurie de l’offre sur les actifs les plus prisés. L’autre pilier de cette transformation est la dura- bilité. Toutefois, pour atteindre les objectifsdedé- carbonation fixés, le rythme de rénovation des bâtiments existants devrait êtremultiplié par cinq ! « Désormais, près de 70% des investis- seurs privilégient la rénovation de l’an- cien plutôt que la construction neuve, voyant dans ces projets une source de valeur ajoutée à long terme », constate Emna Rekik. Rebond en 2025 Àentendre Emna Rekik, l’année 2025 a été marqué au Grand- Duché par un solide rebond de l’activité. Avec une prise en occupa- tion de 181.160 m², le marché des bureaux a progressé de 36 % par rapport à l’année précé- dente. Ce dynamisme est principalement soutenu, sans grande surprise il est vrai, par les secteurs bancaire et financier qui assurent quelque 30 % des transactions. La tendance majeure à Luxembourg reste le flight to quality :lesentreprisesdélaissentlesimmeublesobso- lètespours’installerdansdesbâtimentsde“GradeA” (neufsourénovés),quireprésententaujourd’hui65% de la demande. Des projets emblématiques comme le SkyPark à l’aé- roport ou le Kronos au Kirchberg illustrent cette re- cherche de biens. Tramet train Une récente étude de JLL souligne un facteur dé- terminant sur lemarché luxembourgeois : la proxi- mité des transports en commun. Près de 70 % du volume total des transactions se concrétise dans un rayondemaximum10minutes àpiedd’une station de tram/bus ou de train. Si cette accessibilité est certes d’un indéniable confort pour les employés, les bâtiments connectés au réseau urbain affichent aussi des loyers de 30 % supérieurs à ceux qui en sont éloignés ! Environnement de travail etmobilité Les perspectives pour les mois à venir sont « en- courageantes » juge EmnaRekik.Avec une certaine stabilisation des conditions de financement et une meilleure visibilité sur les rendements, les investis- seurs institutionnels font leur grand retour. Si le marché des bureaux reste dominant (54% des transactions), on note une diversification vers le re- tail (22%) et le secteur résidentiel (9%). Très claire- ment, l’immobilier, en 2026, ne se résumera plus à quatre murs et un toit. C’est, conclut l’oratrice de JLL, « un actif stratégique où l’expérience humaine, la performance environnementale et la connecti- vité technologique détermineront désormais la va- leur réelle ». Sur le marché des bureaux, le succès se vérifiera sur la capacité à transformer l’existant (flex solu- tion) pour créer les meilleurs environnements de travail susceptibles de retenir les talents, sans né- gliger la durabilité (le neuf clairement privilégié) et des offres de mobilité les plus captives possibles. HugoLEBLUD Conférence JLL - Ecofin Club Le marché des bureaux retrouve des couleurs à Luxembourg By Supriya R AMDOWAR , Senior Manager, François M ARÉCHAL , Partner & Eysheeta M UNGUR , Manager, Haca Partners * L uxembourg’s position as a global hub for alternative in- vestments continues to evolve, and litigation-related assets are becoming interesting instru- ments for FundManagers. Inves- tors are also drawn to their uncorrelated returns, and yet, with opportunities come significant complexity. In a different context, when any investment fund is itself or in its portfolio involved in a liti- gation valuation, audit challenges are increased, especiallywhen the impactmay exceed themateriality thresholds set by the auditors. This article explores the role of the audi- tor and the applicationof fair valueprin- ciples, International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), and valuation tech- niques, starting from its experience of Third Party Litigation Funding, extend- ing to assessing the materiality of litiga- tions inany impacted fund.As part of its commitment to audit quality in alterna- tive investments,HACAPartners contin- uously follow these developments. WhatAre Litigation-RelatedAssets? These are financial interests originating from a legal claim or proceeding, often connected to commercial lawsuits or ar- bitration cases. They reflect the potential economic value from a settlement, judg- ment,orenforcementaction.Theseassets typically emergewhen the Fundcovers a claimant’s legal costs under an agreed budgetinreturnforacontractualshareof any eventual recovery. For the auditors, thelitigationexposuremayimpactprovi- sions, impairment testing, going concern assessments and even the adequacy of disclosures. Unlike traditional invest- ments,theseassetsareilliquid,dependent on legal outcomes, and require complex valuationmodels. TheAuditor:At theHeart of Trust Auditors play a crucial role in building confidence around the assessment and valuationof litigation-relatedassets. Their responsibility is to protect the interests of investors and stakeholders by ensuring valuations are reasonable, consistent, and supported by robust governance. In an asset class without standard benchmarks andwhereassumptionscaneasilybecome overly optimistic, auditors provide an independent perspective, challenging management’s assumptions, validating valuation models, and ensuring disclo- sures reflect reality. Overall, the auditors not only validate the valuation outcome, but also the credibility of the underlying information included in the valuation model. Independence and professional scepticism are essential to maintain trust. Exercising professional scepticismmeans striking the right balance: being prudent andpragmaticwithoutavoidingtherisks. Audit Context and Framework By auditing this type of Funds, auditors face several challenges. They need to as- sess themateriality impact on each asset and the evidence are often qualitative and are received from the legal advi- sors/valuationexperts. Theyalsoneed to apply the ISAs framework to an area characterised by significant judgment and inherent uncertainty. Under ISA315, the valuationof these as- sets is considered a significant risk due to the high degree of estimation and the lack of observable market data. Accord- ingly, auditors must obtain a thorough understanding of how management identifies,monitors, andevaluates ongo- ing legal cases and assess. ISA 540 (Revised) governs accounting estimates and requires auditors to eval- uatemanagement’s data input,method- ology, assumptions, and model consistency. Thepurpose is also toassess the consistency of the methodology ap- plied from one reporting period to an- other, challenging the assumptions included in the valuation models and perform a sensitivity analysis to deter- mine any changes in outcomes when there are changes to the assumptions. ISA 500 provides guidance on obtaining sufficientandappropriateauditevidence, which is crucial in the context of litigation assets where much of the information suchas casemerits, probabilityof success, expected recoveries, and enforceability, comes fromexternal sources or subjective estimates. This includes evaluating the re- liability of underlyingdata, corroborating informationfromlegaladvisors/valuation experts, anddocumenting the basis of the auditor’s conclusions. ISA 620 governs the use of external ex- perts, such as legal advisors or valuation experts,whoprovideinputoncasemerits, timelines, and key assumptions that feed into the valuation process. Coordination between auditors, management, experts, and lawyers can be challenging, but it is crucial for a reliableoutcome. Properdoc- umentation of the expert’s competence and independence is also required. InLuxembourg, theFunds are structured mainly as RAIFs or SIFs under theAlter- native Investment FundManagersDirec- tive(AIFMD).TheAIFMDrequireseither an independent valuation function or an external valuer, with oversight from the Fund’s management. These Funds are also governed by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financi er (CSSF). Historical Cost vs Fair ValueMeasurement A key question is whether the litigation assets should be measured using histori- cal cost or fair value. The choice has sig- nificant implications for investor reporting.Historicalcost,mostofthetime selectedforclosedendedfunds,offerssta- bilitybecausevalues remainconstant un- less impairment is required, even if not related with the underlying claim value. In the context of litigationwhere circum- stancescanevolvesignificantlyovertime, historical cost often fails to reflect eco- nomic reality. When a historical cost model is applied, impairment testing be- comes critical. Auditors must assess whetherthecarryingamountremainsre- coverable by validating the fair value. Judgement is required to determine whether objective evidence of impair- ment exists and whether management’s assumptions remain reasonable. Fair value, by contrast, aligns with the framework set out under IFRS 13, which defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset in an orderly transaction at the measurement date. For litigation assets, fair value reflects the per- spective of market participants and re- quiresconsiderationofcurrentconditions. Litigation-related assets fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy because they rely on unobservable inputs. Valuation therefore depends on key factors relating to the probability of success, expected re- covery amounts, expected legal fees, tim- ing of cash flows and potential enforcement obstacles. Fair value pro- videsgreatertransparencybutintroduces volatilitybecausechangesinassumptions directly affect valuations. Valuation considerations Intheabsenceofobservablemarketprices, the auditors assess whether the valuation approach is appropriate to the nature of theasset,ifitisconsistentlyappliedacross the same asset class and is also aligned withthevaluationpolicyasapprovedand adopted by management. In practice, an income-based approach - the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model - is most com- monly used in valuing this type of assets. Auditors focus on the design and imple- mentation of the model as well as the in- volvementofmanagementand/orexperts in its application. Fromagovernanceperspectiveandinline with the AIFMD and CSSF expectations, auditorsalsoassesswhetherthevaluation oftheassetsissubjecttoindependentchal- lengesandperiodicreviews.Thisincludes reviewing the role and independence of any external valuer, the involvement of management and/or the valuation com- mittee in approving the selectedmethod- ology and key assumptions, and proper documentationvalidating any changes in the models or assumptions from one re- portingperiod to the other. Sensitivity analysis is essential, demon- strating how changes in key assump- tions would affect the reported value of the asset. This analysis not only supports the auditors’ conclusion but also en- hances transparency for investors and key stakeholders. Practical Realities: Enforcement andLiquidity Litigation-matters present unique chal- lenges: substantiating these positions is rarely straightforward, whichmeans val- uations often depend on scenario-based models rather than observable market prices. These scenariosmust account for a rangeofoutcomes,includingadverseout- comeswhereclaimsfailorsettlementsare significantly delayed, even after the final verdict granted compensation. When a verdict is issued, investors often expectarapidconversionintocash.How- ever, enforcement can be protracted due to appeals, jurisdictional hurdles, or resis- tance from the counterparty. In some cases, collection efforts may stretch over years, creating a mismatch between ex- pectedandactualliquidity.Thisdelaycan straincashflow,disruptrefinancingplans, andmost importantly jeopardize investor returnsandforcefundstoseekalternative financingunder unfavourable terms. Combinedwithbroadereconomicuncer- tainty,thesefactorsraisethestakesconsid- erably. For auditors, this reality demands rigorous stress testing that incorporates enforcementriskandtimingassumptions, as well as meticulous documentation to ensure transparency and reliability. Audit Challenges Auditingthesevaluationspresentsunique challenges. Management bias is a major risk, as assumptions about successproba- bilities can be overly optimistic. Despite the inherent logic of the construction of law, outcome uncertainty adds complex- ity because of other elements of unpre- dictability. Models rely on unobservable or highly sophisticated inputs (like case lawassessment),whicharedifficulttover- ify,andpost-balance-sheeteventscanma- terially affect valuations. These factors make litigation fund assets highly judg- mentalandpronetoerror.Anothercritical challenge is advocacy risk .Auditorsmust remain factual, neutral and objective, avoiding any influence from manage- ment’soptimismortheirownprofessional judgments. Independence and profes- sional scepticism are essential to ensure that valuations reflect reality. Conclusion In a field where uncertainty is inherent andvaluationsrelyheavilyonlegal,quan- tumandenforcementweightedscenarios ;thetruevalueoftheauditorbecomesun- mistakably clear. Litigation-related assets challenge conventional audit approaches, demanding independence, technical ex- pertise, anddisciplinedscepticism. This is where the auditor’s coreDNA—objectiv- ity, integrity, and commitment to trans- parency—matters most. By challenging assumptions from valuation experts, like Profile Investment, assessing valuation processes,andensuringdisclosuresreflect realrisks,auditorsprovidetheconfidence investors and regulators rely on. As themarket for litigation assets evolves andasother investment funds experience material disputes from time to time, HACA Partners remains committed to thismission, combining audit rigor, valu- ationinsight,andregulatoryexperienceto deliver reliable reporting and reinforce trust across Luxembourg’s alternative in- vestmentecosystem.Thisdedicationcon- tinues to strengthen governance and uphold investor confidence over time. * FrançoisMarechal ,PartneratHACAPartnersandIRE member,hasextensiveexperienceinLuxembourg'sfinancial servicessector,withastrong focusontheauditofalternative investment structures. Eysheeta Mungur , FCCA, and SupriyaRamdowar ,FCCAareSeniorManageratHACA Partners, specialising in the audit of alternative investment structures. Both are recognised for their strong accounting and financialservicesauditexpertise. Auditing litigations in Luxembourg: Navigating Valuation andAudit Challenges