In the context of the EU Directive 2019/1023/UE of 20 June 2019 (“Directive”) and in the aftermath of the Covid crisis, France has reformed its insolvency legislation. The purpose of the legislation is both to implement the requirements of the Directive into the French legislation, but also to tackle the consequences of the Covid crisis and endorse some of the measures that have been taken in this respect and have brought the number of insolvency proceedings to a historic low, as well as other measures.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

Cass. Com., 10 mars 2021, n°19-12.825

Dans le cadre d’une procédure de liquidation judiciaire, un liquidateur a assigné directement et conjointement le dirigeant de la société et son assureur pour demander leur condamnation solidaire au paiement de l’insuffisance d’actif des sociétés sur le fondement des articles L. 651-2 du code de commerce et L. 124-3 du code des assurances.

Cass. com., 10 mars 2021, n° 19-22.385

L’article L. 622-24 du Code de commerce est clair : tout mandataire ou préposé du créancier peut effectuer pour le compte de celui-ci une déclaration de créance au passif d’un débiteur à l’encontre duquel une procédure collective a été ouverte.

En effet, cet article prévoit notamment (alinéa 2) que :

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.