Energy prices have soared over the last few months. Although this evolution has impacted all economic operators, energy-intensive companies are particularly affected. The Belgian legislator has therefore introduced a set of protection measures, including amongst others a so-called “temporary moratorium”. This moratorium provides amongst others protection against bankruptcy and judicial dissolution as well as against attachments on movable assets for energy debts.

Sinds 1 januari 2021 zijn de Europese insolventieverordening en Brussel Ibis Verordening niet langer van toepassing op het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Bovendien voorziet de handels- en samenwerkingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en het VK niet in een specifiek erkennings- of tenuitvoerleggingsmechanisme met betrekking tot grensoverschrijdende insolventie- en herstructureringsprocedures na Brexit. De vraag rijst dus of en onder welke voorwaarden Belgische rechtbanken Engelse schemes of arrangement en restructuring plans zullen erkennen na Brexit.

Since 1 January 2021, the European Insolvency Regulation and the Brussels I Recast Regulation no longer apply to the United Kingdom. In addition, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not provide any specific recognition or enforcement mechanism in relation to cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings following Brexit. The question thus arises if and under which conditions Belgian courts will continue to recognise UK schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans post Brexit.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers an application to the Federal Court for the private hearing of a public examination where separate criminal proceedings were also on foot.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.

Key takeaways

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.