Since 1 January 2021, the European Insolvency Regulation and the Brussels I Recast Regulation no longer apply to the United Kingdom. In addition, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not provide any specific recognition or enforcement mechanism in relation to cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings following Brexit. The question thus arises if and under which conditions Belgian courts will continue to recognise UK schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans post Brexit.

Summary

With government support instigated by the Covid-19 pandemic coming to an end, there is an inevitability that some hotel owners will sadly not have the liquidity to continue to operate in the medium term. Eager investors are seeing opportunities and are waiting to deploy capital. We examine the main considerations for investors who are looking to purchase distressed hotel assets out of an insolvency process.

General Introduction

In a recent post, I discussed three situations in which a debtor in bankruptcy might find itself dispossessed of assets that appeared to be property of the bankruptcy estate. This article expands on that general idea and presents a compendium of situations in which creditors or circumstances may deprive a debtor of assets or their value.

Editor’s Note:  this is likely not an asset upon which you should base your reorganization – see below.

A recent decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified the question whether a Swiss ancillary bankruptcy estate has standing to contest a schedule of claims of a bankrupt Swiss third-party debtor if the foreign bankruptcy estate filed the respective claims directly and regardless of the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy decree. In essence, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court denied the standing of the ancillary bankruptcy estate as it may in such cases not be considered a creditor of the respective claims.

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.

This article deals with the insolvency concept of the center of main interests (COMI) under the European Union insolvency legislation, in particular Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (the Insolvency Regulation or the Regulation).

Pursuant to the Insolvency Regulation COMI is one of the central unified and autonomous concepts¹ of the insolvent debtor, i.e. it is an insolvency concept and not a corporate law or tax concept.

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.

This question is of particular importance considering further that the provisions of the Luxembourg Commercial Code may seem confusing when read literally and in isolation as to whether the period commences from the date of cessation of payments (cessation des paiements) alone, or the date of both the cessation of payments (cessation des paiements) and loss of creditworthiness (ébranlement du crédit) (i.e., the cumulative criteria for bankruptcy).

While the world wrestles with the day-to-day realities of the pandemic, 2021 will bring further challenges. With the memory of the litigious and regulatory aftermath of the global financial crisis still fresh, what should be on your radar?

1. Disputed margin calls and close-outs

The new National Security and Investment Bill, which aims to provide the Government with the necessary powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions to protect national security, will introduce a mandatory notification regime across 17 sectors in the UK economy. Although the Bill provides a carve-out for rights exercisable by administrators, insolvency practitioners will still need to be mindful of the risks that the Bill may have on distressed M&A transactions, which may be rendered void if captured by the regime and the notification requirements not complied with.