In a recent decision out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, a court analyzed the effect of a setoff effectuated between two governmental units in the 90 days prior to the filing of a husband and wife’s bankruptcy case. In Hurt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Hurt), 579 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2017), the court addressed competing motions for summary judgment filed by the debtors, on the one hand, and the U.S.

Over the past few years, the Belgian legislature has consolidated various pieces of legislation regulating businesses into a single instrument: the Code of Economic Law (Wetboek van economisch recht/ Code de droit économique). Insolvency law has not escaped this trend. In the summer of 2017, the Belgian Parliament enacted Book XX of the Code of Economic Law, entitled "Insolvency of Undertakings" (hereinafter the "Insolvency Code").

Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment in which it has given a detailed explanation of the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on a contract or other legal relationship.[1] The case in question involved a dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a bank as to whether the bank could file its post-bankruptcy l

Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment in which it has given a detailed explanation of the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on a contract or other legal relationship.[1] The case in question involved a dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a bank as to whether the bank could file its post-bankruptcy l

NautaDutilh

Introduction of senior non-preferred debt in the Netherlands

3 April 2018

FCS Financial Law

KEY TAKEAWAYS

A new EU Directive adopted in December 2017 will enable EU banks, large investments firms and relevant group companies (e.g. holding companies) to issue so-called 'senior non-preferred' debt instruments.

Such senior non-preferred debt will rank senior to regulatory capital instruments (CET1, AT1 and Tier 2) and other subordinated debt, but junior to the institution's senior debt (such as deposits and ordinary creditors).

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a chapter 13 debtor’s bankruptcy case holding that the bankruptcy court below made no specific finding that the debtor violated the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”) to support dismissal of the case.

In one of the first decisions issued this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court addressed an issue of first impression. In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, n/k/a Old Cold LLC, No. 16-9016 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), the First Circuit held that the omission of trademarks from the definition of “intellectual property” in Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code, as incorporated by Section 365(n), leaves a trademark licensee with nothing more than a claim for damages upon the rejection of its license under Section 365(a).

On June 8, 2017, Clifford J. White III, director of the U.S. Trustee Program(“UST Program”)[1], proclaimed before a congressional subcommittee that “debtors with assets or income derived from marijuana may not proceed through the bankruptcy system.”

Introduction

Luxembourg recently adopted a number of legislative reforms aimed at modernising the rules applicable to commercial companies. In relation to the restructuring and insolvency of Luxembourg-based entities, Parliament is discussing the long-awaited Bill 6539 (the so-called 'Insolvency Bill').

In the meantime, a number of reforms which could affect the restructuring and insolvency of commercial companies have been adopted, including:

This decision is significant to debt collectors and debt buyers who, according to the dissent, “have ‘deluge[d]’ the bankruptcy courts with claims ‘on debts deemed unenforceable under state statutes of limitations.’”