Expected for almost two months, the law that partially and temporarily modifies the insolvency legislation has been adopted on 21 March 2021 at last.

This is nearly two months after the general moratorium on bankruptcies, that was in force since 28 October 2020, expired.

1. Why this legislative intervention was necessary

The main purpose of this measure is to adapt the existing restructuring toolbox to the needs of Belgian companies facing major financial difficulties due to the corona crisis.

On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.

Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.

1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire

Hervorming van de insolventiewetgeving

Meer dan twee maanden hebben we er op moeten wachten, maar op 21 maart 2021 kwam eindelijk de goedkeuring van de wet die de insolventiewetgeving gedeeltelijk en tijdelijk hervormt.

Dit was bijna twee maanden nadat het algemene moratorium op faillissementen dat sinds 28 oktober 2020 van kracht is, afliep.

1. Waarom deze wetgevende tussenkomst noodzakelijk was

Réforme de droit de l'insolvabilité

On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.

Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.

1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 regulations come into force on 26 March 2021 extending the duration of COVID-19 related temporary measures, including:

Some interesting recent scheme and plan law of late, proving that schemes and plans continue to be popular restructuring tools for all types of companies and international groups.

DeepOcean companies (Part 26A plans) – January 2021

This was the first time that the court had to consider the application of the new ‘cross-class cram down’ procedure under Part 26A. Trower J approved the plans proposed by three DeepOcean companies but had reserved judgment and in late January handed down a written judgment with important guidance for future plans.

Another interesting case on schemes around the issue of insolvency. A judgment handed down yesterday by Snowden J in MAB Leasing Limited (a Malaysia Airlines leasing company) "parked" the issue of whether a Part 26 scheme (note, not a Part 26A plan) was an insolvency related event under the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol, as there was unanimous creditor consent. At the earlier convening hearing, Zacaroli J, without needing to decide the issue, stated that the company counsel's skeleton provided a "powerful case for concluding that the [Cape Town Convention] did not apply".

Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.

The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements—through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated—was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

The past year has seen some important judgments and hearings (with judgment awaited at the time of writing) on several subjects, some of which may shape the future of UK litigation for years to come. Litigants and litigators have also spent a good part of the year getting used to a new way of conducting litigation—remotely and fully electronically. Starting with contract law, while there has been little by way of Supreme Court guidance on the subject, the lower courts continue to issue interesting judgments.