After almost four years of existence, the Belgian “Act on Continuity of Enterprises” has achieved great success for companies in financial difficulties that wish to shelter from creditors’ lawsuits in order to attempt a restructuring of their business. The Act enables distressed companies to use effective and flexible recovery procedures to continue their business activities and to avoid insolvency.

Depuis 2008, le groupe Dexia a bénéficié d’aides publiques qui ont été soumises à l’examen de la Commission et qui ont été autorisées par celle-ci en février 2010 sous la condition de la réalisation d’un plan de restructuration. Compte tenu des nouvelles difficultés rencontrées par Dexia, le groupe n’a pas été en mesure de respecter son engagement ni de rétablir sa viabilité à long terme.

Overeenkomstig artikel 53 Wet Continuïteit Ondernemingen (hierna “WCO”) is de deelname aan de stemming voorbehouden aan de schuldeisers in de opschorting op wiens rechten het reorganisatieplan een weerslag heeft. Het begrip “weerslag” moet ruim geïnterpreteerd worden en omvat alle maatregelen waarin een reorganisatieplan kan voorzien, zoals een opschortende termijn, een schuldvermindering of elke andere wijziging van de schuldvordering.

The new law of 19 March 2012 amending the Belgian Companies Code on the liquidation procedure which entered into force on 17 May 2012 (the “Law”) has put an end to the legal uncertainty and the controversial practice that arose from the law of 2 June 2006 regarding the realisation of the dissolution and liquidation of a company in one single act.

This new Law has to be read alongside the law of 22 April 2012 amending the Judicial Code on the liquidation procedure of companies (also entered into force on 17 May 2012).

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

The Department of Justice is changing its method of providing public notice for civil and administrative forfeitures.  The Government has traditionally published forfeiture notices in newspapers.  Instead, the Government will now post generalized notices at www.forfeiture.gov. 

The Government must provide actual notice of forfeiture proceedings to those the Government knows have claimed an interest in property to be forfeited.  In a fact pattern the Sixth Circuit characterized as "befitting a John Grisham novel," the Government dug up (literally) a fraudster’s $250,000 on a golf course.  The Government found the money in October 2009 and instituted forfeiture proceedings.  In November and December 2009, the Government posted a generalized notice of forfeiture on the internet.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) filed an objection on June 14, 2012, in the Delaware bankruptcy court proceedings of RG Steel ("Debtor"), challenging a recent sale by RG Steel's parent entity ("Parent") of a 25-percent ownership stake in the Debtor. If the sale is respected, Parent would fall outside of the Debtor's "controlled group" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with the result that Parent may cease to have joint liability for the Debtor's unfunded pension obligations.

Under European law, there are no general rules whit respect to the liability of a holding company for the debts of its insolvent subsidiary.

The Council Regulation (EC) N° 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings only provides for a common framework for insolvency proceedings in the European Union (EU). The harmonised rules on insolvency proceedings intend to prevent assets or judicial proceedings being transferred from one EU country to another for the purposes of obtaining a more favourable legal position to the detriment of creditors (“forum shopping”).

Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory.  An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured.  Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr