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.

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.

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.

“[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.