The number of companies declared bankrupt in Luxembourg has increased tremendously since 2009, reaching a record number of 1,026 in 2012. According to the Luxembourg authorities, this situation is mainly due to the current legislation, which is obsolete and no longer suited to modern financial difficulties.
In 2009, the Luxembourg government decided that the creation of appropriate tools for companies in financial distress was extremely important, especially in the post-crisis period, and decided to tackle this subject.
On 27 May 2015, the bill for the Act implementing the European framework for the recovery and resolution of banks and investment firms (the "Implementation Act") and the explanatory memorandum thereto (the "Explanatory Memorandum") were published. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRMR").
In the past decade, Chapter 11 practice has witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon: structured dismissals.1 Broadly speaking, the term structured dismissal is an umbrella term for a dismissal order that includes additional bells and whistles, such as releases, protocols for claims administration or provisions permitting the gifting of assets to junior stakeholders. Like a Chapter 11 plan, a structured dismissal often identifies how proceeds are to be distributed while retaining jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court for claims administration and other specified matters.
On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.1 The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.
On 20 May 2015, after a three-year legislative process, a recast version of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) was adopted. For the most part, it will be applicable in approximately two years' time. The most important changes likely to affect the European restructuring landscape are a broader scope of application and new rules on COMI. The recast regulation also introduces a framework for group insolvency proceedings.
In a May 4, 2015, decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected secured lenders’ appeals of a controversial bankruptcy court decision confirming the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of MPM Silicones, LLC (also known as “Momentive”). The district court opinion, by Judge Vincent Briccetti, affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision that Momentive’s senior secured lenders could be “crammed down” at a below-market interest rate, without payment of a make-whole premium.
Under Dutch law each partner of a partnership (other than a limited partner) is severally liable for liabilities of the partnership. The Dutch Supreme Court has recently rendered two important judgments with respect to the liability of partners in a partnership and the consequences thereof if the partnership is declared bankrupt.
In Dutch case law it has long been held that the bankruptcy of a Dutch partnership automatically entails the bankruptcy of each of the partners. In a decision that explicitly breaks with previous case law, the Dutch Supreme Court found on 6 February 2015 that the bankruptcy of a Dutch partnership does no longer entail the bankruptcy of its partners.
Europe's latest legislative response to the recent financial crisis — the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) — is intended to establish a minimum common toolbox for regulators in each member state to address bank solvency issues sooner, maintain key financial functions and minimize the impact of any failure.
The BRRD has to be implemented in each member state at the beginning of 2015 following its adoption by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, and it follows other measures to improve banks' capital structure in order to make failure less likely.
New York's position as a global financial center means litigants often have sought to use New York courts as a forum to enforce judgments or arbitration awards against foreign entities. In reality, the burden of enforcement proceedings often falls on third parties, such as financial institutions that hold (or are alleged to hold) the judgment debtor's assets.