On 29 September 2020, the Dutch Senate’s justice committee decided that the Dutch Scheme bill can be dealt with as a formality (hamerstuk) without further debate. It did so after the Dutch Government submitted to the Dutch Senate’s justice committee its memorandum of reply (Memorie van Antwoord) regarding the Dutch Scheme, or to use the full title: the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (commonly referred to as the WHOA, after its Dutch acronym). This blog highlights the various topics covered in the memorandum of reply.

This week, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in NJDEP v. American Thermoplastics Corp et al., No. 18-2865, which adds a new wrinkle on CERCLA section 113(f)(2), which bars non-settling parties from bringing claims for contribution against settling parties, while also placing new emphasis on CERCLA section 104 cooperative agreements in the context of settlements.

Background

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIG Act) came into force which introduced fundamental changes to the UK’s company and insolvency laws which not only provide temporary assistance to companies and their directors during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, but on a permanent basis have significantly bolstered the UK’s restructuring tool kit. Amongst other matters, the CIG Act implements measures contained in the UK Government's consultation on Insolvency and Corporate Governance which concluded in August 2018.

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

Si certains employeurs peuvent affronter la crise actuelle en mettant en œuvre un régime de chômage temporaire – consistant soit en une suspension complète du contrat de travail ou en une suspension partielle et partant à l’application d’une réduction du temps de travail – d’autres employeurs sont contraints de procéder à des licenciements. Des mesures complémentaires de soutien ont été adoptées afin de compenser la diminution des activités par une réduction du temps de travail, permettant ainsi de faire baisser le coût du travail sans devoir procéder à des licenciements.

Dutch law provides for an extension of the limitation period in relation to claims that were “deliberately hidden” from the creditor (article 3:321 (f) Dutch Civil Code). The extension also applies if the debtor deliberately hid the fact that the claim had become due and payable (upon fulfilment of a certain condition, for example). It is, however, unclear what kind of conduct qualifies as deliberate hiding.

In Mexico, all a debtor’s assets are subject to account for the performance of its obligations, except for those assets which, pursuant to law, are inalienable or cannot be attached.1 When a debtor is unable to pay its debts as they become due, it falls into insolvency which is an economic phenomenon with financial, social and legal consequences. When a debtor is unable to pay its debts as they become due, the Mexican legal system provides a mechanism to address the collective satisfaction of the claims with the assets of the debtor.

On 26 May 2020, the Dutch Parliament’s House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) adopted the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord (“WHOA”)). The next step will see the WHOA put to vote in the Senate.

As businesses experience diminishing revenues, falling stock prices, and other economic hardships resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), some economists project the possibility of an unprecedented number of business bankruptcies. Some of these businesses own brands, and some have entered into relationships, most commonly trademark licenses, under which they allow others to use their brands. What happens to a trademark license when a brand owner becomes insolvent, particularly in the context of a reorganization under Chapter 11?