As discussed in our previous update, the Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the “Act”) provides for various options to facilitate business recovery. One such option is the court-supervised sale of (all or part of) the debtor’s business.

The introduction of the court-supervised sale is an important development. Such sales are likely to become a popular option under the Act for two reasons.

The Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the "Act") creates a variety of flexible tools to promote business recovery. This update focuses on the new judicial (i.e., court-supervised) reorganisation proceedings (as opposed to out-of-court workouts and court-supervised sales of the business).

Simplified access to proceedings

The Act of January 31, 2009 on the continuity of companies (Loi relative à la continuité des enterprises/Wet betreffende de continuïteit van de ondernemingen, the "Act") entered into force on April 1, 2009.

When doing business with a Luxembourg company in financial distress, the counterpart should be aware that certain transactions are at risk.

Doing business with a bankrupt Luxembourg company

A bankrupt Luxembourg company is automatically deprived from the administration of its assets. All transactions must be entered into by the receiver in bankruptcy acting in the name and on behalf of the bankrupt company.

In cross border financing transactions, a secured creditor should be aware of Dutch law specifics when dealing with a Dutch obligor in financial distress. Below is a highlighted list of specifics for a secured creditor planning to foreclose on its security or when seeking to improve its security position.

Improving security position

Existing Dutch security documents typically provide for possibilities for improving the position of a secured creditor in case of an event of default.

Getting a tighter grip on collateral

On October 13 2008 the Amsterdam District Court declared the emergency regulations underthe Financial Supervision Act applicable to the Dutch branch of Landsbanki (Icesave).(1) This update looks at:

Radius Credit Union Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada [2009] S.J. No. 148, 2009 SKCA 36, on appeal from
2007 SKQB 472

1992: Farmer Wayne Hingtgen (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Radius
Credit Union Limited (“CU”) granting a security interest on all his present and after
acquired assets.

Mercedes Benz Financial v. Ivica Kovacevic (Ont. SCJ)

February 26, 2009: Finding of contempt of Court: [2009] O.J. No. 783

March 3, 2009: Sentencing hearing and order of five days in jail [2009] O.J. No. 888

Mr. Kovacevic (the “Debtor”) entered into a conditional sale contract to finance a Mercedes vehicle with

Mercedes Benz Financial. After seven of forty-eight payments, he defaulted in payment. He refused to pay or return the vehicle.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

Re Friedman (2008), 49 C.B.R. (5th) 131 (Ont. S.C.J. in bankruptcy)

Mr. Friedman assigned his rights to royalties he would receive from SOCAN, the Canadian copyright collective that administers royalties for tis members, to his music publisher, to secure loan advances to him from the publisher.