It is generally accepted that the last quarter of 2020 will be a risky period for many businesses. The reason for this is not far-fetched, although it is maybe a little too easy to put all the blame on Corona. In any case, it is no longer a disgrace to have to admit problems to pay all suppliers.
During lockdown period, many companies were still able to survive with the special government coronacrisis measures. But now, as these measures are being systematically phased out, risk of bankruptcy has increased.
Het retentierecht dat reeds lang aanvaard wordt als een handig middel om alsnog betaald te worden, kreeg pas in 2018 een wettelijke basis met de nieuwe Pandwet. Onlangs kreeg het retentierecht nog een een steuntje bij van het Hof van Cassatie.
1. Waar gaat het over?
Het retentierecht is een handig middel voor schuldeisers die niet betaald worden en in het bezit zijn van een goed van hun schuldenaar.
In a recent decision 9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidius Capital Corp, 2020 SCC 10 , the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that:
On 24 April 2020, Royal Decree No 15 has been published which temporarily protects companies against conservatory and enforcement attachment and bankruptcy (and judicial dissolution) and the dissolution of agreements due to non-payment.
This does not affect the obligation to pay due debts.
This temporary suspension of legal actions that may lead to insolvency applies from 24 April 2020 to 17 May 2020 for all enterprises whose continuity is threatened by the corona crisis, provided that they were not already in default on 18 March 2020.
The authorities have taken several measures to support businesses and employment, under the pressure of the corona crisis. Measures in relation to tax and social security, temporary unemployment and state financial support were taken. An agreement with the financial sector to grant payment facilities was reached, as well.
When a plaintiff obtains a judgment from the court, that party is normally precluded from starting another lawsuit seeking the same judgment debt from the defendant.
In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”
Companies have a lot more international debtors as a result of globalisation and internationalisation of trade, making the recovery of debts a lot harder. It is a good thing that the law is evolving more and more towards making the recovery of international debts simpler and faster.
Suppose a Belgian company has a claim on a French buyer, but the latter refuses to pay. The Belgian company therefore wants to seize the buyer's movable assets in France. Which steps should be taken to achieve this?
Suite à la globalisation et à l’internationalisation du commerce, les entreprises se voient confrontées, de plus en plus souvent, à des débiteurs étrangers, ce qui ne rend pas le recouvrement plus facile. C’est dès lors une bonne chose que la législation évolue de plus en plus vers un recouvrement plus simple et plus facile de dettes internationales.
In Water Matrix Inc. v Carnevale, Justice Sanfilippo found that a consent judgment may survive bankruptcy if it arises from a claim that is based in fraud. This allowed a company that was defrauded by a former employee to continue to enforce the company’s judgment after bankruptcy.
Background