Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge between pledgees and insolvency administrators has caused countless disputes. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.

Introduction

Introduction

Executive Summary

De Herstructureringsrichtlijn van 20 juni 2019 zorgt voor het eerst op Europees niveau voor een harmonisatie van de wetgeving omtrent insolventie.

Een belangrijk onderdeel van deze Richtlijn heeft betrekking op preventieve herstructureringsstelsels, die tot doel hebben de vereffening van levensvatbare ondernemingen te vermijden.

In België zal dit voornamelijk een impact hebben op de gerechtelijke reorganisatie, en meer bepaald op de gerechtelijke reorganisatie door een collectief akkoord.

The Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 harmonises insolvency legislation for the first time at the European level.

An important part of this Directive concerns preventive restructuring frameworks, which aim to limit the unnecessary liquidation of viable companies.

In Belgium, this will mainly impact judicial reorganisation, and more specifically judicial reorganisation by means of collective agreement.

La directive du 20 juin 2019 relative aux restructurations harmonise pour la première fois la législation sur l'insolvabilité au niveau européen.

Une partie importante de cette directive concerne les cadres de restructuration préventive, qui visent à limiter la liquidation inutile d'entreprises viables.

En Belgique, cela aura principalement un impact sur la réorganisation judiciaire, et plus particulièrement sur la réorganisation judiciaire par accord collectif.

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

A recent law, which came into force on 21 July 2022, amends the regulation for the accounting professions with regard to their professional practice and the anti-money laundering prevention.

The law was enacted after the Constitutional Court ruled in two judgments that various provisions of the law relating to the audit profession and the anti-money laundering law were against the constitution.

Hereafter we discuss the impact of the new law on auditors, certified public accountants and the unregulated tax advisors.