On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law. This Proposal is intended to harmonise the insolvency laws of EU member states in order to make insolvency proceedings more predictable and efficient. The Proposal also includes a number of principles the pre-pack proceedings in each member state must meet.

The Proposal defines pre-pack proceedings as:

Einde aan overdrachts- en verpandingsverboden om het kredietpotentieel van het bedrijfsleven te vergroten

Inleiding en huidig recht

On 26 May 2020, the Act on the confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was adopted by the Dutch parliamentary House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer). The Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) will now have the final vote. Parliamentary consultations in the Dutch Senate will take place on 9 June 2020.

Op 17 maart jl. nam de regering uitzonderlijke maatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de corona uitbraak het hoofd te bieden. Met noodmaatregelen probeert de regering ondernemingen overeind te houden. Het blijft onzeker of die maatregelen voldoende financiële ruimte geven om de salarissen en schuldeisers (op termijn) te betalen. We bespreken daarom in deze bijdrage een uiterste redmiddel: de wettelijke procedure van surseance van betaling.

Surseance van betaling (uitstel van betaling)

The Act on the confirmation of private plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was submitted to the Dutch parliament last year and, once adopted, introduces a framework under which tailor-made (financial) restructuring plans can be implemented outside formal insolvency proceedings.

The WHOA combines elements of the English Scheme of Arrangements, US Chapter 11 and the EU Restructuring Directive (EU 2019/1023).

The following is an overview of the WHOA's most important features.

The procedure

In Coosemans Miami v. Arthur (In re Arthur), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida held last week that individuals in control of a PACA trust may still receive a bankruptcy discharge of debts arising from their breach of such PACA trust. A link to the opinion is here.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that federal bankruptcy law does not prohibit a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy filing notwithstanding that such shareholder was also an unsecured creditor. This represents the latest successful attempt to preclude bankruptcy through golden shares or bankruptcy blocking provisions in corporate authority documents.

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Weird things happen in bankruptcy court. All you high-falutin Chapter 11 jokers out there, cruise down to the bankruptcy motions calendar one day.

Bankruptcy courts have authority to hold in civil contempt one who refuses to comply with a bankruptcy court order, including incarceration and/or daily fines until the offender complies.[1] But when does civil contempt[2] cross into criminal contempt, which is punitive and outside