The concept of “property of the estate” is important in bankruptcy because it determines what property can be used or distributed for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors. Defined by section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, “property of the estate” broadly encompasses the debtor’s interests in property, with certain additions and exceptions provided for in the Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 541. Difficult questions can arise in a contractual relationship between a debtor and a counterparty about whether an entity actually owns a particular asset or merely has some contractual right.

In 2022, there were several high-profile crypto bankruptcy filings. A big question in these cases is whether there will be any money to satisfy unsecured creditor claims. If there are funds to distribute, then the creditors’ claims will become more valuable, and the cases will become even more interesting.

It’s often hard to persuade a bankruptcy court to grant a motion for substantial contribution. Any attorney thinking about making a motion should first ask herself two questions. First, has my work benefitted both my client and other creditors? Second, did my work result in more than an incidental benefit to the bankruptcy estate? If the answer to either question is no, then the attorney should forget about making the motion. The time spent on it will be wasted, and the motion will be denied.

We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.

Another domino has fallen. Earlier this year, we wrote about the challenges facing the crypto industry that resulted in the bankruptcy filings of Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, and Voyager Digital. We noted that other crypto entities could also end up in chapter 11, and that prediction has proven correct.

The ramifications of uneven increases to fees in chapter 11 bankruptcies continue to ripple through federal courts.

A U.S. bankruptcy court recently denied chapter 15 recognition to a case in the Isle of Man (IOM). The court ruled that the foreign case was neither a foreign main proceeding nor a foreign non-main proceeding. Although the court found that the IOM proceeding was a “foreign proceeding,” it also held that the debtor’s center of main interests wasn’t in the IOM and the debtor didn't have an establishment there. In re Shimmin, No.

De Herstructureringsrichtlijn van 20 juni 2019 zorgt voor het eerst op Europees niveau voor een harmonisatie van de wetgeving omtrent insolventie.

Een belangrijk onderdeel van deze Richtlijn heeft betrekking op preventieve herstructureringsstelsels, die tot doel hebben de vereffening van levensvatbare ondernemingen te vermijden.

In België zal dit voornamelijk een impact hebben op de gerechtelijke reorganisatie, en meer bepaald op de gerechtelijke reorganisatie door een collectief akkoord.

The Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 harmonises insolvency legislation for the first time at the European level.

An important part of this Directive concerns preventive restructuring frameworks, which aim to limit the unnecessary liquidation of viable companies.

In Belgium, this will mainly impact judicial reorganisation, and more specifically judicial reorganisation by means of collective agreement.

La directive du 20 juin 2019 relative aux restructurations harmonise pour la première fois la législation sur l'insolvabilité au niveau européen.

Une partie importante de cette directive concerne les cadres de restructuration préventive, qui visent à limiter la liquidation inutile d'entreprises viables.

En Belgique, cela aura principalement un impact sur la réorganisation judiciaire, et plus particulièrement sur la réorganisation judiciaire par accord collectif.