The Belgian legislator is preparing a legal framework on insolvency law to expand the restructuring toolbox. On 26 March 2023, a draft bill was published transposing EU Directive 2019/1023 on restructuring and insolvency. The Bill should be voted before the summer holidays. Our Restructuring & Insolvency team has identified five things you need to know about the upcoming changes.

The Belgian legislature once again recently improved the statutory framework for business restructuring. Thus, any business - a broad concept that covers not only companies and non-profits but also independent contractors - in financial difficulty may request the opening of judicial reorganisation proceedings (procédure en réorganisation judiciaire), commonly referred to by insiders as "PRJ".

Over the past few years, the Belgian legislature has consolidated various pieces of legislation regulating businesses into a single instrument: the Code of Economic Law (Wetboek van economisch recht/ Code de droit économique). Insolvency law has not escaped this trend. In the summer of 2017, the Belgian Parliament enacted Book XX of the Code of Economic Law, entitled "Insolvency of Undertakings" (hereinafter the "Insolvency Code").

A bill containing an entirely new Insolvency Code was presented to the House of Representatives on 20 April 2017. The need for a robust insolvency framework has received substantial attention due to the ongoing economic and financial crisis. Many European countries have recently modernised their insolvency legislation or are in the process of doing so.

In the framework of the digitization of the Belgian judiciary, a central Solvency Register (www.regsol.be) will be available as of 1 April 2017.

Henceforth, creditors must file their claims electronically. The register will be accessible - subject to different procedural formalities - to magistrates, including substitute judges, clerks of court and public prosecutors as well as bankrupt parties, their creditors and counsel.

“[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.