1. Introduction
On 21 November 2014 the draft Dutch Implementation Act for the European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Banks and Investment Firms (the "Implementation Act") and draft guidelines were published for public consultation purposes. The Implementation Act is designed to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and to apply the Single Resolution Mechanism ("SRM").
Introduction
Supreme Court of the Netherlands 11 July 2014 (ABN AMRO vs Berzona)
Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took a new, creative tack in a long struggle with importers regarding application of the “deemed liquidation” statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1504, to entries subject to antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). Importers need to be aware that CBP is now taking the dubious position that it is entitled to “reliquidate” a “deemed liquidated” entry at any time, so long as it gives notice to the importer of the “deemed liquidation” and then reliquidates the entry within 90 days after the date of the notice.
The Belgian Company Code provides for the possibility to dissolve and liquidate a Belgian company in a single step (en un seul acte/in één akte) (for more information, please see the June 2012 edition of this newsletter).
The Act of 25 April 2014 amending the Company Code with regard to liquidation procedure (the "Act") was published in the Belgian State Gazette on 14 May 2014 and entered into force on 24 May 2014. The Act amends one of the main requirements to proceed with dissolution and liquidation in a single step.
On 1 August 2013, an act amending the Business Continuity Act ("BCA") of 31 January 2009 entered into force.
The new act tackles the most common types of abuse under the Business Continuity Act and aims to reduce the number of bankruptcies following reorganisation governed by the BCA. The basic principles of the Business Continuity Act remain unchanged, however.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code offers a strong defense for holders of bonds, notes and other securities to preference and fraudulent transfer actions brought in bankruptcy proceedings. Essentially, any payment made to settle or complete a securities transaction, including repurchases and redemptions of bonds, notes and debentures, is protected from avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code. For many years, however, this powerful defense was rarely used. When the defense was raised, it was usually in the context of protecting payments made in leveraged buy-outs.
Can a secured creditor decide not to participate in a bankruptcy proceeding and thereby avoid any impact the bankruptcy may have on its lien? According to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in S. White Transp., Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013), the answer appears to be that at least in the Fifth Circuit, the secured creditor can avoid the impact a bankruptcy plan has on its lien by simply declining to participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Over the last two decades, many companies faced with excessive asbestos-related liabilities have successfully emerged from bankruptcy with the help of section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which channels all asbestos-related liabilities of the reorganized company to a newly formed personal injury trust. The injunctive relief codified in section 524(g) is modeled on the channeling injunction first crafted in the bankruptcy case of Johns-Manville Corporation, once the world’s largest producer of asbestos-containing products.