Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

On 13 July 2017, the Belgian parliament adopted an Act compiling the existing Belgian insolvency legislation into one insolvency code (the “Insolvency Code“). The Insolvency Code will become law as from its ratification by the King and publication in the Belgian State Gazette, both of which being no more than administrative formalities. The Insolvency Code will apply to any insolvency proceeding opened on or after 1 May 2018.

On 13 July 2017, the Belgian parliament adopted an Act compiling the existing Belgian insolvency legislation into one insolvency code (the "Insolvency Code"). The Insolvency Code will become law as from its ratification by the King and publication in the Belgian State Gazette, both of which being no more than administrative formalities. The Insolvency Code will apply to any insolvency proceeding opened on or after 1 May 2018.

On 11 August 2017, a new Act was adopted amalgamating the existing Belgian insolvency legislation into one insolvency code (the "Insolvency Code"). The Insolvency Code will apply to any insolvency proceeding opened on or after 1 May 2018.

The vast majority of the changes resulting from the Insolvency Code are technical in nature. And the most publicised proposal, the introduction of a "silent" or "pre-pack" bankruptcy, was abandoned at the last minute.

The Belgian Act of 11 July 2013 on security over movables (the “Security over Movables Act”) will modernise Belgium’s legislation in respect of security over movables. Most notably, the Security over Movables Act is expected to have a particularly beneficial effect on borrowing base/asset-based lending in Belgium.

Under the current legislation, the creation of a possessory pledge (vuistpand/gage avec dépossession) is subject to various restrictions. For example:

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

The Belgian Act of 11 July 2013 on security over movables (the Security over Movables Act) will modernise Belgium's legislation in respect of security over movables. On 7 November 2016, a draft bill has been published postponing the entry into effect of the Security over Movables Act until 1 January 2018 at the latest. In addition to the postponement, the draft bill also fine-tunes certain technical aspects of the Security over Movables Act to achieve maximum legal certainty and practical usefulness.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.