In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) (“Purdue”), the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan. The Court narrowly read the Code’s language, providing that a plan may “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title,” 11 U.S.C.

In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, businesses find themselves at the intersection of technological innovation and geopolitical and economic turbulence. Despite the increased reliance on software systems and digital infrastructure, it remains peculiar that in many EU Member States there's still no clear framework for handling software licenses in insolvency.

We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.

According to Section 1445 of the Belgian Judicial Code (JC), any creditor can, on the basis of authentic or private documents, levy a (conservatory) garnishment on the sums or goods a third party owes to its debtor. After notification of the garnishment order, the third-party garnishee can no longer hand over these sums and/or goods to the debtor (Section 1451 JC).

Conservatory garnishments are typically used by creditors to put pressure on their debtor (eg notifying a garnishee order to a debtor’s bank, which then freezes the debtor’s accounts).

We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

From 1 September 2023, the restructuring expert will make their first appearance in Belgian restructuring law. This new court-appointed practitioner can be assigned a variety of tasks, ranging from assisting the debtor in negotiations with creditors to supervising the restructuring process and compliance with creditor information obligations.

From 1 September 2023, the Belgian reorganisation procedure by way of a collective plan will be radically changed for large companies. It introduces the obligation to group creditors (and shareholders) into “classes” for the purpose of voting on a restructuring plan.

The Belgian Act of 7 June 2023 transposing EU Restructuring Directive (2019/1023) introduces new rules specifically aimed at large companies filing for a judicial reorganisation through a collective plan (similar to the US Chapter 11 or UK Restructuring Plan procedure).

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.

We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.