(Originally published on September 29, 2011)
The Act of May 20 2011 implements EU Directive 2009/44/EC (amending the EU Settlement Finality Directive and the EU Collateral Directive), and amends the Collateral Act of August 5 2005. The Collateral Act has always been a lender-friendly implementation of the Collateral Directive. Most of its provisions have not changed and in general, the Collateral Act remains favourable to creditors in insolvency situations and other contexts.
Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Insolvency aspects of collateral arrangements
Beneficiary of collateral
Remedy for potential conflict with depository
Rights attached to the collateral
Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Insolvency aspects of collateral arrangements
Beneficiary of collateral
Remedy for potential conflict with depository
Rights attached to the collateral
The case of In re Dickson, 655 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2011) centered on the status of the debtor’s manufactured home under Kentucky law. In Kentucky, a manufactured home is considered personal property. As such, in order for a lien to be effective, it must be noted on the certificate of title. A manufactured home may be converted to real property, however, if the owner files an affidavit that states it is permanently affixed to real estate and then surrenders title.
Since the entry into force of the Financial Collateral Act of 15 December 2004 (the "Collateral Act") implementing Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims (the "Collateral Directive"), financial collateral arrangements have benefitted from increased flexibility and legal certainty in Belgium.
In a recent appeal to the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Inre Collins, 2011 WL 4445451 (6th Cir. BAP Aug. 12, 2011), the trustee sought a declaratory judgment to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens on the debtor’s real property held by four defendants. The trustee appealed the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as to purported holders of the debtor’s first and second mortgages on the debtor’s property.
FILING CHAPTER 13
On 16 September 2011 the Netherlands Supreme Court rendered an important judgment regarding the exercise by a bank of its right to reverse a direct debit (LJN BQ873 SNS Bank/Pasman q.q.). In light of this judgment it can be concluded that, in principle, a bank may exercise its right of reversal not only if the direct debit caused the account to be overdrawn or (if an overdraft facility has been granted) the limit to be exceeded, but also if the bank will, as a result of the debtor/payer's bankruptcy, be unable to recover the claim resulting from the direct debit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision refusing to confirm debtors’ reorganization plan that included auction procedures that forbade secured creditors from “credit bidding” for the assets. Inre River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, No. 10-3597, 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011). In that case, the debtors (owners of various hotel properties) proposed a plan of reorganization that included auctioning certain properties encumbered by security interests.