Recently, government introduced a new draft law on the reform of the Bankruptcy Act and the Law regarding the Continuity of Enterprises (LCE).

The draft law still needs to be approved by the Federal Parliament, but it is expected to come into effect no later than 1 September 2017.

The current legislation on insolvency will be made up to date and adapted to European Regulations. Moreover it will be incorporated into the Code of Economic Law to make it a coherent set.

Below is a brief overview of the main new elements of the law.

As from 1 April 2017, Bankruptcy files will be held and followed up entirely electronically in the Central Insolvency Register.

Any bankruptcy that will be declared open as from 1 April 2017, has to be registered and kept in the Central Insolvency Register instead of the Commercial Courts Registry.

The Central Insolvency Register, hereinafter referred to as "the Register", is the computerized database in which bankruptcy files are registered and retained (www.regsol.be).

The United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently issued a long-awaited decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (“Jevic”), which limits the use of “structured dismissals” in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, requiring structured dismissals pursuant to which final distributions are made to comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme, or the consent of all affected parties to be obtained.1

What is a Structured Dismissal?

Nearly four years after its decision in Stern v. Marshall raised new doubts about the place of bankruptcy courts in our legal system, the Supreme Court has finally put those doubts to rest. This week, in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935, the Court held that even for claims that must otherwise be resolved by an Article III court, a bankruptcy court may still adjudicate the matter based on consent.

The case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), No. 12- 1200, was easily one of the most closely watched bankruptcy cases in many years. Last week’s decision in that case, however, was far less dramatic than  some practitioners feared it might be. The Supreme Court answered two important questions regarding the power of bankruptcy courts that it left open three years ago in Stern v. Marshall.