After almost four years of existence, the Belgian “Act on Continuity of Enterprises” has achieved great success for companies in financial difficulties that wish to shelter from creditors’ lawsuits in order to attempt a restructuring of their business. The Act enables distressed companies to use effective and flexible recovery procedures to continue their business activities and to avoid insolvency.
Depuis 2008, le groupe Dexia a bénéficié d’aides publiques qui ont été soumises à l’examen de la Commission et qui ont été autorisées par celle-ci en février 2010 sous la condition de la réalisation d’un plan de restructuration. Compte tenu des nouvelles difficultés rencontrées par Dexia, le groupe n’a pas été en mesure de respecter son engagement ni de rétablir sa viabilité à long terme.
Overeenkomstig artikel 53 Wet Continuïteit Ondernemingen (hierna “WCO”) is de deelname aan de stemming voorbehouden aan de schuldeisers in de opschorting op wiens rechten het reorganisatieplan een weerslag heeft. Het begrip “weerslag” moet ruim geïnterpreteerd worden en omvat alle maatregelen waarin een reorganisatieplan kan voorzien, zoals een opschortende termijn, een schuldvermindering of elke andere wijziging van de schuldvordering.
On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.
In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.
The new law of 19 March 2012 amending the Belgian Companies Code on the liquidation procedure which entered into force on 17 May 2012 (the “Law”) has put an end to the legal uncertainty and the controversial practice that arose from the law of 2 June 2006 regarding the realisation of the dissolution and liquidation of a company in one single act.
This new Law has to be read alongside the law of 22 April 2012 amending the Judicial Code on the liquidation procedure of companies (also entered into force on 17 May 2012).
On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.
The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002
Introduction
Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”
Background
A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.
Under European law, there are no general rules whit respect to the liability of a holding company for the debts of its insolvent subsidiary.
The Council Regulation (EC) N° 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings only provides for a common framework for insolvency proceedings in the European Union (EU). The harmonised rules on insolvency proceedings intend to prevent assets or judicial proceedings being transferred from one EU country to another for the purposes of obtaining a more favourable legal position to the detriment of creditors (“forum shopping”).