Three years ago, the Commercial Code amended the procedure for declaring debts in France with the aim of simplifying the management of insolvency proceedings.

Before this reform, the only way for creditors (excluding employees) to declare their debts was to send their proof of debt to the receiver within 2 months (or 4 months for those living outside France) from the publication of the judgment opening the safeguard procedure, adminstration or liquidation – or be debarred.

Il y a trois ans déjà, l’ordonnance du 12 mars 2014, conçue dans le but de « simplifier » la gestion des procédures collectives, est venue modifier la procédure de déclaration des créances.

Avant cette réforme, les créanciers (hors salariés) devaient adresser leur déclaration de créances au mandataire judiciaire dans un délai de deux mois (quatre mois pour ceux résidant hors de France Métropolitaine) à partir de la publication au BODACC du jugement ouvrant la procédure de sauvegarde, de redressement ou de liquidation judiciaire, sous peine de forclusion.

As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process.

BACKGROUND

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

A recent decision of the Slovak Courts suggest that if main proceedings have been opened in one member state and the debtor has assets in Slovakia, the insolvency practitioner in the main proceedings must act quickly and sell those assets before secondary proceedings are opened in Slovakia, otherwise he runs the risk of losing the assets to the secondary estate. Legal title to the assets must have passed to the buyer before the secondary proceedings are opened; it is not enough just for contracts to have been exchanged.

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

The French government has made the assessment that certain small commercial courts were regularly finding themselves confronted with cases of great complexity, only because the company in difficulty had its head office in the jurisdiction of these courts. It therefore announced the establishment of specialised commercial courts (TCS) which will process the most complex insolvency proceedings.

The Macron law of 7 August 2015, named after the current Minister of the Economy, anticipated the establishment of specialised commercial courts which will process the most complex insolvency proceedings. Currently, any of the 134 French commercial courts can be applied to; the choice being mainly the location of the distressed company’s headquarters. This new arrangement aims to improve efficiency and to increase the number of specialised judges (because in France, commercial judges are lay judges). The aim of the reform is to save jobs.