Op 1 mei 2018 is de nieuwe insolventiewetgeving in werking getreden. De Wet Continuïteit Ondernemingen (WCO) is als aparte wet opgeheven wordt onder gewijzigde vorm volledig geïntegreerd in Boek XX WER.

In Deel I van deze reeks werd de wijziging van het insolventierecht in het algemeen toegelicht.

On 1 May 2018, the new insolvency legislation came into force. The (separate) Continuity of Enterprises Law as we knew it until recently, has ceased to exist and has been amended and fully incorporated into Volume XX of the Code of Economic Law.

As from 1 May 2018, the Belgian insolvency landscape will look different following the entry into force of the brand new Insolvency Law (Book XX of the Economic Law Code). In the wake of the electronic debt reporting system that came into force on 1 April 2017, the filing of bankruptcy must also be made electronically in the Central Solvency Register (RegSol) as of 1 May 2018.

Vanaf 1 mei 2018 ziet het Belgische insolventielandschap er anders uit ingevolge de inwerkingtreding van het gloednieuwe insolventierecht (Boek XX in het Wetboek Economisch Recht). In navolging van de elektronische aangifte van schuldvordering sinds 1 april 2017, dient vanaf 1 mei 2018 ook de aangifte van faillissement elektronisch te gebeuren in het Centraal Register Solvabiliteit (Regsol).

L’entrée en vigueur de la toute nouvelle loi sur l’insolvabilité modifiera le paysage du droit de l’insolvabilité belge dès à partir du 1er mai 2018. Le 1er avril 2017 entrait en vigueur le système de déclaration de créance par voie électronique. A présent, entrera en vigueur, dès ce 1er mai 2018, la demande de faillite par voie électronique dans le Registre Central de la Solvabilité.

Sellers and suppliers of movable assets can deal with problems caused by poorly-paying customers through a retention of title clause. This clause makes it contractually possible to stipulate that ownership of a certain good does not transfer until the third party acquirer has paid the full price.

It is interesting to note that the new Law on Pledges has created a better legal framework for the retention of title clause, putting any creditor - assuming a retention of title clause has been included - in a stronger position.

The law of 11 August 2017 that adds Book XX "Insolvency of Enterprises" into the Code of Economic Law enters into force on 1 May 2018.

As we already stated in our previous contributions about the reform of the insolvency law, this law modifies and regroups the Bankruptcy law and the Law of 31 January 2009 on the Continuity of Enterprises.

1. The notion "Enterprise" replaces the notion "Merchant"

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

In a series of recent decisions1, the Federal Court of Australia has held that section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) operates such that any new security granted by a company in external administration2. that could only be perfected by registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), and which is not the subject of an effective registration made before the appointment of the external administrator, will be ineffective3.

In a wide-reaching judgment concerning an appeal by Mighty River International in the administration of Mesa Minerals, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recognised that a "holding" Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is permissible under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

The key points - Holding DOCAs as a flexible framework

The key points for insolvency and turnaround professionals to take from Mighty River International v. Hughes are: