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.

Since 1993, decisions out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consistently adopted the aggregate “rent approach” for calculating lease rejection damages in bankruptcy proceedings. But in Bankruptcy Judge Wiles’ recent decision in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, he departed from the “rent approach” in favor of the “time approach,” which is based on the time remaining under the lease rather than factoring in the total or aggregate rent still owed under the lease.

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.

On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed lower court decisions rejecting Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s (“LBSF”) attempt to recover nearly $1 billion in payments to noteholders and enforcing certain Priority Provisions (defined below) that subordinated payments otherwise payable to LBSF under related swap transactions.

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

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

On November 8, 2018, Judge Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision dismissing the involuntary petition that had been filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a non-recourse CDO, thus ending a nearly seventeen-month-long saga that was followed closely by bankruptcy practitioners and securitization professionals alike. SeeTaberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd., et. al., (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.), No. 17-11628 (MKV), 2018 WL 5880918, at *24 (Bankr.