The COVID-19 crisis has emphasised the importance of having performant insolvency proceedings. As of now, new measures are in force which aim to optimise the judicial reorganisation procedure. We elaborate on the three most relevant changes.

Belgian insolvency law organises two main types of insolvency proceedings: bankruptcy (faillissement/faillite) which is a winding-up proceeding and judicial reorganisation (gerechtelijke reorganisatie/réorganisation judiciaire) which is a safeguard proceeding.

The COVID-19 crisis has emphasised the importance of having performant insolvency proceedings. As of now, new measures are in force which aim to optimise the judicial reorganisation procedure. We elaborate on the three most relevant changes.

Belgian insolvency law organises two main types of insolvency proceedings: bankruptcy (faillissement/faillite) which is a winding-up proceeding and judicial reorganisation (gerechtelijke reorganisatie/réorganisation judiciaire) which is a safeguard proceeding.

During this second wave of COVID, new lock-down measures have been taken. Belgium has already provided for numerous measures to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19). In addition, the Belgian authorities have again adopted a statutory moratorium imposing a stay on creditors’ right to enforce debts, terminate existing agreements early and initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

Belgium has already taken numerous measures to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19). The federal government has now also decided temporarily to protect debtors affected by the coronavirus crisis from creditors by imposing a stay on creditors’ right of creditors to enforce debts, terminate or dissolve existing agreements early and initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

Yesterday, in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court held that a trademark licensee may continue using a licensed trademark after its licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the relevant license agreement. While a debtor-licensor may "reject" a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, such rejection is only a breach of the agreement and does not allow the licensor to revoke the licensee's rights.

On 19 December 2018, the Council of the EU and the Parliament reached an agreement on the proposal for a directive on "preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures". The main objective of the directive is to enhance the rescue culture across EU.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) safe harbors do not prevent a liquidation trust from pursuing some state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims assigned to the trust by creditors.1 Notably, the Bankruptcy Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's recent Tribune decision, in which the Second Circuit concluded that the Section 546(e) safe harbors apply to state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims on federal preemption grounds.2 Instead, the Bankruptcy Court decided that federal preemption did not appl

Since April, two bankruptcy courts have refused to enforce limited liability company ("LLC") agreement provisions requiring the respective LLCs to obtain the unanimous consent of their members in order to seek bankruptcy relief.1 On June 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court") relied on federal public policy to invalidate an LLC agreement provision requiring unanimous member consent to file bankruptcy where the member at issue owed no fiduciary duties to the LLC and the member's primary relationship to the

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3  

Case Background

It should be common knowledge that a secured creditor, having received proper notice in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, faces the risk that its lien will be extinguished if it fails to object to a reorganization plan that does not specifically preserve the lien. Apparently, however, not all secured lenders realize this risk, and some fall prey to a trap for the unwary in §1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code by failing to protect their liens and place their collateral at risk.