It is generally accepted that the last quarter of 2020 will be a risky period for many businesses. The reason for this is not far-fetched, although it is maybe a little too easy to put all the blame on Corona. In any case, it is no longer a disgrace to have to admit problems to pay all suppliers.
During lockdown period, many companies were still able to survive with the special government coronacrisis measures. But now, as these measures are being systematically phased out, risk of bankruptcy has increased.
Het retentierecht dat reeds lang aanvaard wordt als een handig middel om alsnog betaald te worden, kreeg pas in 2018 een wettelijke basis met de nieuwe Pandwet. Onlangs kreeg het retentierecht nog een een steuntje bij van het Hof van Cassatie.
1. Waar gaat het over?
Het retentierecht is een handig middel voor schuldeisers die niet betaald worden en in het bezit zijn van een goed van hun schuldenaar.
On 24 April 2020, Royal Decree No 15 has been published which temporarily protects companies against conservatory and enforcement attachment and bankruptcy (and judicial dissolution) and the dissolution of agreements due to non-payment.
This does not affect the obligation to pay due debts.
This temporary suspension of legal actions that may lead to insolvency applies from 24 April 2020 to 17 May 2020 for all enterprises whose continuity is threatened by the corona crisis, provided that they were not already in default on 18 March 2020.
The authorities have taken several measures to support businesses and employment, under the pressure of the corona crisis. Measures in relation to tax and social security, temporary unemployment and state financial support were taken. An agreement with the financial sector to grant payment facilities was reached, as well.
Companies have a lot more international debtors as a result of globalisation and internationalisation of trade, making the recovery of debts a lot harder. It is a good thing that the law is evolving more and more towards making the recovery of international debts simpler and faster.
Suppose a Belgian company has a claim on a French buyer, but the latter refuses to pay. The Belgian company therefore wants to seize the buyer's movable assets in France. Which steps should be taken to achieve this?
Suite à la globalisation et à l’internationalisation du commerce, les entreprises se voient confrontées, de plus en plus souvent, à des débiteurs étrangers, ce qui ne rend pas le recouvrement plus facile. C’est dès lors une bonne chose que la législation évolue de plus en plus vers un recouvrement plus simple et plus facile de dettes internationales.
In Stanford v Akers the BVI Court of Appeal addressed standing in the context of applications under Section 273 of the Insolvency Act 2003, whereby an aggrieved person can ask the court to reverse or vary a liquidator's decision.
The liquidators of Chesterfield entered the company into a global settlement agreement with Deutsche Bank AG and Kaupthing, which included the admission of Kaupthing's claim in Chesterfield's liquidation.
In separate but related proceedings, the BVI courts have permitted an applicant to inspect documentation relating to the liquidation of certain BVI companies.
In Robert Tchenguiz v Rawlinson & Hunter Trustee SA (the TFT Trust claim) Tchenguiz sought delivery of all proof of debt and claim documentation submitted by the defendant trustees to the joint liquidators in the liquidation of the companies.
Grant Thornton were appointed as receivers over a BVI company under Section 43 of the Arbitration Act 2013 to preserve the value of the company pending the determination of foreign arbitration proceedings. The defendant in the arbitration owned the shares of the BVI Company.
In the case of Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited [2018] the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.