Op 20 juni 2019 heeft het Europees Parlement voor het eerst een nieuwe richtlijn aangenomen die het insolventierecht op Europees niveau harmoniseert.

Het was lang wachten tot het proces van omzetting in Belgisch recht eindelijk werd afgerond met de goedkeuring van een wetsontwerp in mei 2023 en de publicatie van de wet op 7 juni 2023.

De wet, waarvan efficiëntie het sleutelwoord is, zal op 1 september 2023 in werking treden.

Dit is een belangrijke stap in de richting van de modernisering van de insolventiewetgeving.

From 1 September 2023, Belgian insolvency law will provide a new discrete preparatory procedure before bankruptcy. It’s aimed at facilitating a value-maximising transfer of assets or activities as a going concern in the interest of creditors and employees.

From 1 September 2023, the Belgian reorganisation procedure by way of a collective plan will be radically changed for large companies. It introduces the obligation to group creditors (and shareholders) into “classes” for the purpose of voting on a restructuring plan.

The Belgian Act of 7 June 2023 transposing EU Restructuring Directive (2019/1023) introduces new rules specifically aimed at large companies filing for a judicial reorganisation through a collective plan (similar to the US Chapter 11 or UK Restructuring Plan procedure).

Le 20 juin 2019, le Parlement Européen a adopté une nouvelle directive qui harmonise pour la première fois le droit de l’insolvabilité au niveau européen.

L’attente fut longue avant que le processus de transposition en droit belge n’aboutisse enfin par l’adoption d’un projet de loi en mai 2023, et par la publication de la loi le 7 juin 2023.

La loi, dont le maître mot sera l’efficacité, entrera en vigueur le 1^er septembre 2023.

On June, 20 2019, the European Parliament adopted a new directive harmonising insolvency law at a European level for the first time.

It was a long wait before the process of transposition into Belgian law finally came to fruition with the adoption in May 2023, and the publication of the law on June, 7 2023.

The law, whose guiding principle is “efficiency”, will come into force on September, 1 2023.

Key Takeaways

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

In Re Guy Lam Kwok Hung [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified when a debtor can resist a bankruptcy petition based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in his contract with the petitioner creditor. It is important to appreciate the Court’s reasoning and how it can be applied to various factual scenarios.

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².