On 1st November 2023, the new Luxembourg law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and modernisation of insolvency law (the "Law") enters into force.
This long-awaited reform implements Directive 2019/1023 to introduce a modern restructuring regime, with out-of-court and court supervised mechanisms to protect companies in distress. The Law is expected to provide more flexible and effective measures for businesses under financial stress and their creditors, making Luxembourg an attractive jurisdiction for restructurings.
The Bankruptcy Protector
The filing of a bankruptcy petition under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code creates the ‘automatic stay,’ which prevents creditors from taking any further action against either the debtor or the debtor’s assets during the bankruptcy. Seasoned bankruptcy attorneys know that a violation of the automatic stay is a serious matter and, because of this, appropriately advise their clients on complying with, or enforcing, the stay. However, stay violations can inadvertently occur even when all reasonable and necessary precautions are taken.
The Bankruptcy Protector
The effects of the COVID-19 outbreak leave many Belgian enterprises in financial distress, or even, for some of them, at risk of insolvency. In order to help these enterprises navigate the crisis and prevent them from going bankrupt, the Belgian Government implemented a moratorium on insolvency and enforcement proceedings.
Beneficiaries
Any enterprise (e.g. any legal person) whose continuity is threatened due to the COVID-19 outbreak and which was not in cessation of payments on 18 March 2020 may benefit from this moratorium.
At the very end of a recent opinion, the First Circuit seemingly provided guidance on how bondholders can attack the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s debt restricting act, PROMESA (The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act). However, the apparent guidance offered by the First Circuit may only be fool’s gold.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
A dispute over whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) can order one of Northern California’s largest natural gas and electric companies – Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) – to reject wholesale power purchase contracts (“PPCs”) will be decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), instead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”).
Bankruptcy Judges cannot impose additional local chapter 13 confirmation requirements beyond those created by Congress, according to the Southern District of Illinois (the “District Court”).