From 1 September 2023, judicial reorganisation proceedings by way of an amicable agreement as well as those with a view to a collective plan will both have a private variant. This will help avoid negative publicity and allowing the debtor to prepare its restructuring in all quietness.

As a reminder, a company confronted with financial difficulties threatening its continuity may file for judicial reorganisation proceedings to get protection against enforcement actions and bankruptcy filings by its creditors.

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.

On June 27, 2022, Three Arrows Capital (“3AC”), a crypto hedge fund, commenced liquidation proceedings in the British Virgin Islands and thereafter filed recognition proceedings in, among other countries, the United States and Singapore.

From 1 September 2023, Belgian insolvency law will provide a new discrete preparatory procedure before bankruptcy. It’s aimed at facilitating a value-maximising transfer of assets or activities as a going concern in the interest of creditors and employees.

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).

Key Takeaways

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

How close is too close? The answer to this question can have dire implications for people and companies involved in the cannabis industry who wish to seek bankruptcy protection.

Although a non-insolvency case the recent case of PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors (“PACCAR”) has caused waves in the litigation market (including insolvency litigation market) following the Supreme Court finding that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) where funders recover a percentage of the amount awarded to a claimant are damaged based agreements (DBAs) – which- unless the LFA complied with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regs”) means that they are unenforceable.

When a debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, section 524(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code prohibits a creditor from seeking to collect a prepetition debt against the discharged debtor or its property. Importantly, the discharge does not extinguish the debt—it merely limits recourse against the discharged debtor. Section 524(e), however, provides that the discharge does not affect the liability of non-debtors for the discharged debt.