Sinds 1 januari 2021 zijn de Europese insolventieverordening en Brussel Ibis Verordening niet langer van toepassing op het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Bovendien voorziet de handels- en samenwerkingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en het VK niet in een specifiek erkennings- of tenuitvoerleggingsmechanisme met betrekking tot grensoverschrijdende insolventie- en herstructureringsprocedures na Brexit. De vraag rijst dus of en onder welke voorwaarden Belgische rechtbanken Engelse schemes of arrangement en restructuring plans zullen erkennen na Brexit.
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.
The year is 2012, and the biotech you founded has just received FDA approval for a wildly promising product with significant differentiation from other products in its class. You only have 35 employees, but begin to build a lean, incentive-based salesforce to launch your novel commercialization strategy built on a specialty distribution model, high-touch reimbursement support, aggressive marketing tactics, and premium pricing. Hiring a compliance officer is not a priority at this time.
In In re KarcreditLLC [1], the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana was faced with two lenders with claims to one original stock certificate as collateral.
On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that private student loans are not explicitly exempt from a debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.
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 Uniform Commercial Code was established to provide predictability and conformity in commercial transactions. Certain states have adopted nonstandard UCC provisions, which create an unreliable and unpredictable market for secured creditors. In addition, statutory liens, which are liens arising under federal and state statute, may disrupt the priority of secured creditors’ interest in a debtor’s assets. In re First River Energy, L.L.C. (986 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir.
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.
On March 19, in a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) held that triangular setoff is not permissible in bankruptcy due to Bankruptcy Code Section 553(a)’s mutuality requirement, and that parties cannot evade that requirement by contracting around it. See In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 990 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 2021).