The farming and agricultural industry has been dealing with financial challenges even before the pandemic. Those who were in financial jeopardy before the shutdown are forced to rely on taking on even more debt now just to survive. Currently, the sum of debt across the farming sector amounts to a staggering $496 billion according to the USDA.

Lawyers occasionally wonder how the law ended up as it is. We had that experience after the Dutch Supreme Court’s decision of 1 July 2022 (Rabobank/Ten Berge q.q.; ECLI:NL:HR:2022:984), regarding the possibility or impossibility of pledging a claim. The Supreme Court decided that claims that have been made non-transferable under property law in a contractual agreement between a creditor and a debtor, cannot be pledged either.

Since 9 January 2022, the public type of the Dutch Scheme is automatically recognized in the EU under the European Insolvency Regulation. This will be further discussed in this blog.

Last year saw the introduction of the Dutch Scheme (we refer to our previous blogs for further details on the Dutch Scheme).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On 28 June 2021, the Minister of Justice presented a draft temporary bill on transparency of expedited liquidations (de tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Minister expects that there will be an increase in the number of businesses that will need to be liquidated. Under Dutch law, the most efficient way to do this is through expedited liquidation (turboliquidatie). However, as the expedited liquidation barely provides for safeguards to creditors, it is often considered a mechanism that is open for abuse.

Earlier in the pandemic, our team identified the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 as a growth opportunity for businesses with the vision and the resources to take advantage. One such opportunity is the chance to diversify or grow by acquiring distressed competitors, suppliers, or customers.

1. Introduction

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

On 1 January 2021, the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord, the “Dutch Scheme“) came into effect. At time of writing (25 February 2021), the Dutch courts have rendered 10 judgments in connection with the Dutch Scheme. This blog provides you with the highlights of this case law.

1. General observations