The United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently issued a long-awaited decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (“Jevic”), which limits the use of “structured dismissals” in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, requiring structured dismissals pursuant to which final distributions are made to comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme, or the consent of all affected parties to be obtained.1

What is a Structured Dismissal?

Sedert 1 januari 2017 voorziet de wet uitdrukkelijk in een algemene mogelijkheid voor de Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (“RSZ”) om onbetwiste geldschulden in te vorderen door middel van een dwangbevel.

Dit houdt in dat de RSZ zichzelf een uitvoerbare titel (een dwangbevel) kan verschaffen, zonder een omweg te maken via de arbeidsrechtbank. 

De invordering via dwangbevel is mogelijk voor alle bijdragen, bijdrageopslagen, verwijlintresten en andere vergoedingen die aan de RSZ verschuldigd zouden zijn. Belangrijk is weliswaar dat het dient te gaan om schulden:

The new Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) enacted in 2012 was the first part of the effort to rewrite the statutory provisions relating to the incorporation and operation of companies. The remaining task of updating the winding up and insolvency provisions was completed in May 2016, when amendments to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) (CWUMPO) were passed into law. Although the implementation date of these amendments are to be announced by the government, it is time to look at the significant changes ahead.

The proposed bankruptcy sale of Golfsmith International Holdings to Dick’s Sporting Goods was recently approved, after the privacy ombudsman recommended that almost 10,000,000 consumer records (i.e., the personal information of consumers) of Golfsmith International Holdings can be transferred to Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Article 37 of the Act on Continuity of Enterprises states that "claims against the debtor related to services provided by its co-contractor during a judicial reorganization are to be qualified as privileged claims in a subsequent bankruptcy". Both the doctrine and case law are divided as to how this article should be interpreted, in particular whether or not only a direct co-contractor of the debtor can invoke the privileged nature of its claim. This discussion is particularly relevant with regard to claims for advance business tax, VAT claims and other tax debts. 

On 20 May 2015, the European Parliament adopted a new version (the "Revised Regulation") of Regulation 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Original Regulation").

According to the statement of the Council's reasons, the Revised Regulation is aimed at making cross-border insolvency proceedings more effective with a view to ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and its resilience in economic crises.

En date du 20 mai 2015, le Parlement Européen a adopté une nouvelle mouture (le Règlement Révisé) du Règlement 1346/2000 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité (le Règlement Original).

Aux termes de l’exposé des motifs du Conseil, l’objectif du Règlement Révisé était de rendre les procédures d’insolvabilité transfrontières plus efficaces avec l’intention plus large d’assurer le bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur et sa résilience lors des crises économiques.

Nearly four years after its decision in Stern v. Marshall raised new doubts about the place of bankruptcy courts in our legal system, the Supreme Court has finally put those doubts to rest. This week, in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935, the Court held that even for claims that must otherwise be resolved by an Article III court, a bankruptcy court may still adjudicate the matter based on consent.

Principle

In order to secure the protection of judicial reorganization, the debtor needs to attach to the petition for judicial reorganization a certain number of documents provided for in article 17 § 2 of the Law on the continuity of enterprises (LCE). If these documents are not attached to the petition, the LCE provides that the petition shall be deemed inadmissible.

The liquidation in one single act is allowed in Belgium since 2012. The following formalities are strictly required: