On 13 July 2017, the Belgian parliament adopted an Act compiling the existing Belgian insolvency legislation into one insolvency code (the "Insolvency Code"). The Insolvency Code will become law as from its ratification by the King and publication in the Belgian State Gazette, both of which being no more than administrative formalities. The Insolvency Code will apply to any insolvency proceeding opened on or after 1 May 2018.

On 11 August 2017, a new Act was adopted amalgamating the existing Belgian insolvency legislation into one insolvency code (the "Insolvency Code"). The Insolvency Code will apply to any insolvency proceeding opened on or after 1 May 2018.

The vast majority of the changes resulting from the Insolvency Code are technical in nature. And the most publicised proposal, the introduction of a "silent" or "pre-pack" bankruptcy, was abandoned at the last minute.

Late last month, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in PEM Entities LLC v. Eric M. Levin & Howard Shareff. At issue in PEM Entities is whether a debt claim held by existing equity investors should be recharacterized as equity. The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve a split among the federal circuits concerning whether federal or state law should govern debt recharacterization claims.

The Belgian Act of 11 July 2013 on security over movables (the “Security over Movables Act”) will modernise Belgium’s legislation in respect of security over movables. Most notably, the Security over Movables Act is expected to have a particularly beneficial effect on borrowing base/asset-based lending in Belgium.

Under the current legislation, the creation of a possessory pledge (vuistpand/gage avec dépossession) is subject to various restrictions. For example:

We have written in the past about the doctrine of equitable mootness. A March 30, 2017 per curiam affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson) explores the concept and limitations of equitable mootness and distinguishes it from the related doctrine of constitutional mootness.

What can a lender do about successive bankruptcy filings by a borrower? What can lessors do when their tenants file successive bankruptcy petitions? A recent decision by a bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of New York gives guidance on these questions.

In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

The Belgian Act of 11 July 2013 on security over movables (the Security over Movables Act) will modernise Belgium's legislation in respect of security over movables. On 7 November 2016, a draft bill has been published postponing the entry into effect of the Security over Movables Act until 1 January 2018 at the latest. In addition to the postponement, the draft bill also fine-tunes certain technical aspects of the Security over Movables Act to achieve maximum legal certainty and practical usefulness.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.