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.

On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.

On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.

On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.

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 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.

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.