Energy prices have soared over the last few months. Although this evolution has impacted all economic operators, energy-intensive companies are particularly affected. The Belgian legislator has therefore introduced a set of protection measures, including amongst others a so-called “temporary moratorium”. This moratorium provides amongst others protection against bankruptcy and judicial dissolution as well as against attachments on movable assets for energy debts.

Sinds 1 januari 2021 zijn de Europese insolventieverordening en Brussel Ibis Verordening niet langer van toepassing op het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Bovendien voorziet de handels- en samenwerkingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en het VK niet in een specifiek erkennings- of tenuitvoerleggingsmechanisme met betrekking tot grensoverschrijdende insolventie- en herstructureringsprocedures na Brexit. De vraag rijst dus of en onder welke voorwaarden Belgische rechtbanken Engelse schemes of arrangement en restructuring plans zullen erkennen na Brexit.

Since 1 January 2021, the European Insolvency Regulation and the Brussels I Recast Regulation no longer apply to the United Kingdom. In addition, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not provide any specific recognition or enforcement mechanism in relation to cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings following Brexit. The question thus arises if and under which conditions Belgian courts will continue to recognise UK schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans post Brexit.

Belgium has already taken numerous measures to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19). The federal government has now also decided temporarily to protect debtors affected by the coronavirus crisis from creditors by imposing a stay on creditors’ right of creditors to enforce debts, terminate or dissolve existing agreements early and initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.