The Belgian Act of 11 July 2013 on security over movables (the “Security over Movables Act”) will modernise Belgium’s legislation in respect of security over movables. Most notably, the Security over Movables Act is expected to have a particularly beneficial effect on borrowing base/asset-based lending in Belgium.

Under the current legislation, the creation of a possessory pledge (vuistpand/gage avec dépossession) is subject to various restrictions. For example:

The Belgian Act of 11 July 2013 on security over movables (the Security over Movables Act) will modernise Belgium's legislation in respect of security over movables. On 7 November 2016, a draft bill has been published postponing the entry into effect of the Security over Movables Act until 1 January 2018 at the latest. In addition to the postponement, the draft bill also fine-tunes certain technical aspects of the Security over Movables Act to achieve maximum legal certainty and practical usefulness.

The current COVID-19 market environment presents unique circumstances to companies and investors who may, as a result of the tumultuous markets and the financial and personal effects of COVID-19, have opportunities to acquire distressed businesses at potentially depressed prices. Particularly in this market environment, though, one or more of the following scenarios may apply:

On November 1, 2019, reforms to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that were announced in Canada’s federal 2019 budget will come into force. Key changes to the insolvency regime include:

When a plaintiff obtains a judgment from the court, that party is normally precluded from starting another lawsuit seeking the same judgment debt from the defendant.

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.

In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.

In Water Matrix Inc. v Carnevale, Justice Sanfilippo found that a consent judgment may survive bankruptcy if it arises from a claim that is based in fraud. This allowed a company that was defrauded by a former employee to continue to enforce the company’s judgment after bankruptcy.

Background

In a recent decision Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership 2018 BCSC 970, the British Columbia Superior Court confirmed that: