The law of 11 August 2017 that adds Book XX "Insolvency of Enterprises" into the Code of Economic Law enters into force on 1 May 2018.

As we already stated in our previous contributions about the reform of the insolvency law, this law modifies and regroups the Bankruptcy law and the Law of 31 January 2009 on the Continuity of Enterprises.

1. The notion "Enterprise" replaces the notion "Merchant"

On 13 July 2017 parliament voted to introduce book XX "Insolvency of Companies" in the Code of Economic Law.

In a previous article we already wrote that the insolvency law would be adapted to current national and international regulations and case law and would be incorporated into the Code of Economic Law as a coherent whole.

In this way, solvency procedures must be more transparent, efficient and effective.

Minister of Justice Koen Geens has abandoned the introduction of the 'silent bankruptcy' following a judgment of 22 June 2017 of the European Court of Justice.

Recently, government introduced a new draft law on the reform of the Bankruptcy Act and the Law regarding the Continuity of Enterprises (LCE).

The draft law still needs to be approved by the Federal Parliament, but it is expected to come into effect no later than 1 September 2017.

The current legislation on insolvency will be made up to date and adapted to European Regulations. Moreover it will be incorporated into the Code of Economic Law to make it a coherent set.

Below is a brief overview of the main new elements of the law.

As from 1 April 2017, Bankruptcy files will be held and followed up entirely electronically in the Central Insolvency Register.

Any bankruptcy that will be declared open as from 1 April 2017, has to be registered and kept in the Central Insolvency Register instead of the Commercial Courts Registry.

The Central Insolvency Register, hereinafter referred to as "the Register", is the computerized database in which bankruptcy files are registered and retained (www.regsol.be).

On January 1, 2016, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) was enacted in Kentucky and can be found at KRS 378A.005 e seq.  The UVTA replaces KRS 378, which contained KRS 378.010, the Kentucky fraudulent conveyance statute, and KRS 378.060, the Kentucky preference statute.  Nationally, the UVTA will replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).  According to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, California, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota have joined Kentucky in enacting the UVTA. 

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions, including financial institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks for creditors who take collateral, in security for the repayment of debt, containing PII data? What are the risks to businesses when they transfer assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks to businesses when they sell assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Radio Shack – The pioneer of PII data collection

On Monday, we released three new research indices tracking distress in U.S. financial markets.   

The indices use Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing data to signal underlying financial distress which may not be reflected in broader stock market averages.  The indices and the full quarterly report can be found at www.distressindex.com.

The “FBT/TrBK Distress Indices” comprise three different measurements based on Chapter 11 filings:

As electronic discovery has become more prevalent and voluminous, national standards for the preservation of evidence have evolved dramatically in the past decade. Through a proliferation of electronic discovery orders involving discovery compliance, courts have addressed when the duty to preserve evidence arises, signifying a party’s duty to issue a “litigation hold.” Courts have not answered, however, whether a party can withhold documents generated before issuing a litigation hold on the basis of work product protection.