Expected for almost two months, the law that partially and temporarily modifies the insolvency legislation has been adopted on 21 March 2021 at last.
This is nearly two months after the general moratorium on bankruptcies, that was in force since 28 October 2020, expired.
1. Why this legislative intervention was necessary
The main purpose of this measure is to adapt the existing restructuring toolbox to the needs of Belgian companies facing major financial difficulties due to the corona crisis.
On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.
Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.
1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire
Hervorming van de insolventiewetgeving
Meer dan twee maanden hebben we er op moeten wachten, maar op 21 maart 2021 kwam eindelijk de goedkeuring van de wet die de insolventiewetgeving gedeeltelijk en tijdelijk hervormt.
Dit was bijna twee maanden nadat het algemene moratorium op faillissementen dat sinds 28 oktober 2020 van kracht is, afliep.
1. Waarom deze wetgevende tussenkomst noodzakelijk was
Réforme de droit de l'insolvabilité
On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.
Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.
1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire
The real lesson from Debut Homes – don't stiff the tax (wo)man
The Supreme Court has overturned the 2019 Court of Appeal decision Cooper v Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NZCA 39 and restored the orders made by the earlier High Court decision, reminding directors that the broad duties under the Companies Act require consideration of the interests of all creditors, and not just a select group. This is the first time New Zealand’s highest court has considered sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, making this a significant decision.
Five years after it refused to pay rent and took the landlord to the High Court, and two years after it was placed into liquidation on account of unpaid rent, the final branch of litigation brought by the directors of Oceanic Palms Limited (in liq) has been cut down by the Supreme Court.
The UK Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liq) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical Ltd) [2020] UKSC 25 has decided that the adjudication regime for building disputes is not incompatible with the insolvency process.
In the two judgments, Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 1368 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v Green Securities Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 1371, Associate Judge Bell significantly reduced the amount recoverable in each proceeding by liquidators.
Both cases considered applications from liquidators to seek approval of their remuneration. In Salus the amount claimed was $91,600 and in Green Securities it was $159,044.
Former liquidator Geoffrey Smith has been convicted on six charges, including stealing $130,000 from two companies to which he had been appointed liquidator. Mr Smith was also convicted of perjury in connection with the same liquidations.
The High Court judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Livingspace Properties Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2020] NZHC 1434 is another chapter in the continuing, bitter saga between Robert Walker, the liquidator of Livingspace and David Henderson (through his wife as proxy).