“[B]ankruptcy inevitably creates harsh results for some players,” explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2021, when it denied a film producer’s claim for contractual cure payments. In re Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 2023058, *9 (3d Cir. May 21, 2021).

Expected for almost two months, the law that partially and temporarily modifies the insolvency legislation has been adopted on 21 March 2021 at last.

This is nearly two months after the general moratorium on bankruptcies, that was in force since 28 October 2020, expired.

1. Why this legislative intervention was necessary

The main purpose of this measure is to adapt the existing restructuring toolbox to the needs of Belgian companies facing major financial difficulties due to the corona crisis.

On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.

Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.

1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire

Hervorming van de insolventiewetgeving

Meer dan twee maanden hebben we er op moeten wachten, maar op 21 maart 2021 kwam eindelijk de goedkeuring van de wet die de insolventiewetgeving gedeeltelijk en tijdelijk hervormt.

Dit was bijna twee maanden nadat het algemene moratorium op faillissementen dat sinds 28 oktober 2020 van kracht is, afliep.

1. Waarom deze wetgevende tussenkomst noodzakelijk was

Réforme de droit de l'insolvabilité

On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.

Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.

1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire

The debtors' legal malpractice claim was "not property of their bankruptcy estate," held a split Ninth Circuit on June 30, 2020. In re Glaser, 816 Fed. Appx. 103, 104 (9th Cir. June 30, 2020) (2-1). But the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota one week later affirmed a bankruptcy court judgment that "the [debtor's] estate was the proper owner" of such a claim. In re Bruess, 2020 WL3642324, 1 (D. Minn. July 6, 2020).

A secured lender's "mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy repossession] does not violate" the automatic stay provision [362(a) (3)] of the Bankruptcy Code, held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, 4 ( Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved "a split" in the Circuits. Id. at 2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative recently filed for Chapter 11 relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, weeks after the February ice storm severely disrupted Texas’s electricity supply and prices. Brazos filed for bankruptcy in part to shield its member cooperatives and consumers from liability for invoices totaling over $2.1 billion from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

On Oct. 27, 2020, Judge Marvin Isgur for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that (1) a make-whole premium was not interest or unmatured interest and thus not subject to disallowance, (2) a make-whole claim was enforceable as liquidated damages under New York law and (3) the solvent debtor exception survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code and the Noteholders were entitled to postpetition interest at the contractual default rate.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied "Colorado law to resolve" the question of "who owns the federal tax refund." Id., at 2.