While the arrival of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge has dominated the British (and the world) headlines this week, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its own long awaited bundle of joy earlier today. In the latest decision in the laborious Nortel and Lehman litigations, the U.K. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that pension claims should not be treated as priority claims and, instead, they should rank equally with general unsecured claims.

Le Luxembourg souhaite se doter de nouvelles procédures d’insolvabilité en raison d’une augmentation constante du nombre de faillites qui a désormais atteint un niveau record en dépassant le millier de faillites depuis 2012. Le gouvernement considère qu’en période de crise la mise en place d’un système approprié en matière d’entreprises en difficulté devient primordiale pour prévenir au mieux la faillite.

Thanks to Anna Nicole Smith and the June 2011 landmark Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, there are seemingly more questions regarding a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final orders (or even proposed orders) than ever before. Those unanswered questions have created considerable uncertainty and, not surprisingly, lengthier and costlier litigation in bankruptcy. Thankfully, the Supremes decided on June 24, 2013 that they will address two of the many questions left unanswered by Stern.

Navigating the most recent leg in the Quebecor regatta, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and ruled that prepetition transfers made in connection with a securities contract may qualify for safe harbor from avoidance actions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—even if the transferee is a mere “conduit” or “intermediary” financial institution. In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. American United Life Insurance Co.), No. 12-4270-bk (2d Cir. June 10, 2013).

Afin de pallier à certains manquements de la LCE et de remédier à certains abus, le législateur a décidé de modifier certaines dispositions de la LCE en adoptant une loi modificative qui ne remet pas fondamentalement cause les principes généraux de la LCE et son intérêt. Certains éléments méritent toutefois que l’on s’y arrête.

Bénéficiaires d’un régime de faveur dans le cadre du concordat judiciaire, l’ONSS et l’administration fiscale sont considérés aux yeux de la LCE comme des créanciers sursitaires ordinaires, à l’instar de tous les créanciers qui ne possèdent ni privilège spécial, ni hypothèque, ni clause de réserve de propriété à l’encontre de leur débiteur.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently held that a third amendment to a lease agreement entered into for the purpose of leasing a second building could not be severed from the original lease agreement; and the debtor was not allowed to reject the lease on that second building under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

It was just an old jalopy legally repossessed by his credit union . . . until he filed a bankruptcy petition and the red lights of the automatic stay started flashing. Smokey pulled the lender over and started issuing citations so be forewarned, put your hazard lights on and drive carefully through the postpetition fog, because this decision is relevant to all secured creditors under all Bankruptcy Code Chapters, not just car lenders under Chapter 13.

After almost four years of existence, the Belgian “Act on Continuity of Enterprises” has achieved great success for companies in financial difficulties that wish to shelter from creditors’ lawsuits in order to attempt a restructuring of their business. The Act enables distressed companies to use effective and flexible recovery procedures to continue their business activities and to avoid insolvency.

Depuis 2008, le groupe Dexia a bénéficié d’aides publiques qui ont été soumises à l’examen de la Commission et qui ont été autorisées par celle-ci en février 2010 sous la condition de la réalisation d’un plan de restructuration. Compte tenu des nouvelles difficultés rencontrées par Dexia, le groupe n’a pas été en mesure de respecter son engagement ni de rétablir sa viabilité à long terme.