The long anticipated law of 7 June 2023 implementing the European Directive on restructuring and insolvency brings about a major reform of Belgian insolvency law. Among various other innovations, it introduces a new judicial reorganisation through collective agreement for large enterprises.

The new law will apply to all procedures opened as from 1 September 2023.

In this second of two client alerts, we will examine to which extent creditors can seek to impose a debt-to-equity swap on shareholders within the new judicial reorganisation for large enterprises.

The new Belgian restructuring plan for large enterprises: secured creditors no longer entitled to the reorganisation value.

The long anticipated law of 7 June 2023 implementing the European Directive on restructuring and insolvency brings about a major reform of Belgian insolvency law. Among various other innovations, it introduces a new judicial reorganisation through collective agreement for large enterprises.¹

The new law will apply to all procedures opened as from 1 September 2023.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put the rescue of struggling but viable businesses front of the agenda. The initial response of the Belgian government and legislator was a moratorium on enforcement measures and bankruptcy petitions. Such moratorium can however not be a structural solution in the long term, and expired on 31 January 2021.

In brief

The COVID-19 pandemic has put the rescue of struggling but viable businesses front of the agenda.  The initial response of the Belgian government and legislator was a moratorium on enforcement measures and bankruptcy petitions.  Such moratorium can however not be a structural solution in the long term, and expired on 31 January 2021.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

All too often the task of procuring and renewing D&O insurance at a portfolio company is assigned to the portfolio company’s CFO or Controller, who employs an insurance broker to find the best price for the amount of coverage deemed appropriate by the broker. When such insurance is procured and thereafter renewed, the CFO/Controller simply reports to the board the fact of the procurement/renewal and few questions about the terms of coverage are discussed at the board level. This can be a big mistake.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.