Algemeen wordt aangenomen dat dit najaar een gevaarlijke fase wordt voor vele ondernemingen. Naar de reden daarvoor hoeven we niet ver te zoeken alhoewel het misschien een beetje te gemakkelijk is alle schuld in de schoenen van Corona te steken. Het is in alle geval al lang geen schande meer om te moeten toegeven dat het soms moeilijk is om alle leveranciers te betalen.

On entend de manière générale que cet automne sera une période dangereuse pour de nombreuses entreprises. Et il n'est évidemment pas nécessaire de chercher bien loin pour en connaître la raison, bien que la situation économique difficile actuelle ne trouve pas sa cause unique dans la crise subie suite au Coronavirus. En tout cas, il n’y a rien d’honteux à admettre que l’on peut avoir du mal à payer tous ses fournisseurs.

It is generally accepted that the last quarter of 2020 will be a risky period for many businesses. The reason for this is not far-fetched, although it is maybe a little too easy to put all the blame on Corona. In any case, it is no longer a disgrace to have to admit problems to pay all suppliers.

During lockdown period, many companies were still able to survive with the special government coronacrisis measures. But now, as these measures are being systematically phased out, risk of bankruptcy has increased.

In a case of first impression on the issue of “whether a lease assumption can survive discharge even though it is not reaffirmed[,]” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a creditor’s post-discharge attempt to collect the balance owed under an automobile lease assumed by the debtor post-petition but prior to discharge in a Chapter 7 case did not violate the discharge injunction.

Het retentierecht dat reeds lang aanvaard wordt als een handig middel om alsnog betaald te worden, kreeg pas in 2018 een wettelijke basis met de nieuwe Pandwet. Onlangs kreeg het retentierecht nog een een steuntje bij van het Hof van Cassatie. 

1. Waar gaat het over?

Het retentierecht is een handig middel voor schuldeisers die niet betaald worden en in het bezit zijn van een goed van hun schuldenaar.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s disallowance of postpetition interest at the default contract rate, holding that “the bankruptcy court erred in applying a liquidated damages analysis and ruling the default interest rate was an unenforceable penalty,” and also erred in weighing “equitable considerations” to avoid enforcing the contractual default interest rate.

On 24 April 2020, Royal Decree No 15 has been published which temporarily protects companies against conservatory and enforcement attachment and bankruptcy (and judicial dissolution) and the dissolution of agreements due to non-payment.

This does not affect the obligation to pay due debts.

This temporary suspension of legal actions that may lead to insolvency applies from 24 April 2020 to 17 May 2020 for all enterprises whose continuity is threatened by the corona crisis, provided that they were not already in default on 18 March 2020.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense to a preference action under § 547(c) applied to a creditor bank that released its liens for less than full payment.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit BAP held that the bankruptcy trustee could not recover two of the three payments that the debtor made to the bank during the 90-day pre-petition preference period.

The authorities have taken several measures to support businesses and employment, under the pressure of the corona crisis. Measures in relation to tax and social security, temporary unemployment and state financial support were taken. An agreement with the financial sector to grant payment facilities was reached, as well.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a loan servicer’s appeal from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling to remand to the lower bankruptcy court a punitive damages award for alleged discharge violations.

In so ruling, the Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction regarding the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling as to the punitive damages award, but affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial of the debtors’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.