The Belgian Constitutional Court addressed in a recent judgment the treatment of creditors in a collective debt settlement procedure. The central question was whether a different treatment of creditors, depending on whether they benefit from security over financial collateral, can be justified by objective criteria and whether this aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Since the court finds the different treatment unconstitutional, the judgment impacts the enforcement rights of pledgees of financial collateral granted by private individuals.
Energy prices have soared over the last few months. Although this evolution has impacted all economic operators, energy-intensive companies are particularly affected. The Belgian legislator has therefore introduced a set of protection measures, including amongst others a so-called “temporary moratorium”. This moratorium provides amongst others protection against bankruptcy and judicial dissolution as well as against attachments on movable assets for energy debts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
The COVID-19 crisis has emphasised the importance of having performant insolvency proceedings. As of now, new measures are in force which aim to optimise the judicial reorganisation procedure. We elaborate on the three most relevant changes.
Belgian insolvency law organises two main types of insolvency proceedings: bankruptcy (faillissement/faillite) which is a winding-up proceeding and judicial reorganisation (gerechtelijke reorganisatie/réorganisation judiciaire) which is a safeguard proceeding.
The COVID-19 crisis has emphasised the importance of having performant insolvency proceedings. As of now, new measures are in force which aim to optimise the judicial reorganisation procedure. We elaborate on the three most relevant changes.
Belgian insolvency law organises two main types of insolvency proceedings: bankruptcy (faillissement/faillite) which is a winding-up proceeding and judicial reorganisation (gerechtelijke reorganisatie/réorganisation judiciaire) which is a safeguard proceeding.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?
During this second wave of COVID, new lock-down measures have been taken. Belgium has already provided for numerous measures to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19). In addition, the Belgian authorities have again adopted a statutory moratorium imposing a stay on creditors’ right to enforce debts, terminate existing agreements early and initiate bankruptcy proceedings.
Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.