Bij besluit van 27 mei 2016 is vastgesteld dat de Wet civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en de Wet herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude per 1 juli 2016 in werking zullen treden. Hieronder volgt een behandeling van de relevante aspecten van deze wetten.

As a general rule, lodging an appeal against a judgment no longer suspends its enforceability. This should accelerate the recovery of outstanding debt in Belgium.

Recovering outstanding debt in Belgium can feel like a long-winded and sometimes frustrating job. A creditor who obtained a judgment against a defaulting debtor is often confronted with an appeal by that debtor, lodged with the only intention to put the enforcement of this judgment on a back burner. Most courts of appeal built up a large backlog as a result of the massive workload of among others these dilatory appeals.

Ruim zes jaar na het faillissement van het Meavita-concern heeft de Ondernemingskamer zich op 2 november jl. in harde bewoordingen uitgelaten over het handelen van bestuur en toezichthouders. De uitspraak volgt op een door de vakbonden en curatoren gestarte enquêteprocedure, waarin het beleid en de gang van zaken binnen Meavita voorafgaand aan faillissement zijn onderzocht.

Quoted October 2015 - Edition 105 Current issues relating to accounting law, article 403 liability and insolvency law 2 In this edition • Introducion • Financial reporting • Article 403 liability • Facilitating reorganisations of businesses: Dutch pre-packs and schemes 3 Fourth Directive (78/660/EEC) and the Seventh Directive (83/349/EEC) in relation to individual and consolidated accounts, and Directive 2013/50/EU, which amends a number of the provisions of the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) and the Transparency Directive (2004/109/ EC). 1.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, recognized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case could be dismissed through a “structured dismissal” that deviates from the priority scheme set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code.1 With its decision, the Third Circuit joined the Second Circuit in rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s per se exclusion on “structured dismissals” that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s prio

As the market for so-called “unitranche” credit facilities continues to increase, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court had an opportunity recently to answer positively the question of whether bankruptcy courts will enforce the Agreement Among Lenders (“AAL”) (a form of intercreditor agreement) used in such structures.

Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.

On March 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the authority of a bankruptcy court to issue non-consensual, non-debtor releases in connection with the confirmation of a plan of reorganization.¹   With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority view that such releases are permissible under certain circumstances.

Background

On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.¹

Background

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion holding that a UCC-3 termination statement that is authorized by the secured party is effective to terminate the original UCC filing even though the secured party did not actually intend to extinguish the underlying security interest.¹ Because the court determined that the relevant section of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) is unambiguous and