As already mentioned in our previous article on this subject, the concept of the transfer of a business is one of the pillars of the reform of insolvency law in Belgium.

In our previous article regarding this subject, we introduced the concept of the transfer of a business under judicial authority, reviewed since the reform as of 1 September 2023.

This contribution constitutes the second part of the subject, and deals with the transfer of a business in the context of a private (confidential) preparation prior to bankruptcy.

Our precedent contribution contained introductory remarks on the reform of insolvency law, which came into force on 1 September 2023. As indicated, this contribution focuses on a key element of this reform.

The revision of the insolvency landscape has not spared the concept of the transfer of business, which is one of its pillars.

The transfer of a business can take place at two stages: as part of a public judicial reorganisation proceeding, but also as part of a silent preparation prior to bankruptcy.

Notre contribution précédente comprenait les propos introductifs portant sur la réforme du droit de l’insolvabilité, entrée en vigueur ce 1er septembre 2023. Comme indiqué, la présente contribution porte sur un élément clé de cette réforme.

La révision du paysage de l’insolvabilité n’a pas épargné le concept du transfert d’entreprise, qui en constitue l’un des piliers.

Le transfert de l'entreprise peut intervenir à deux stades : dans le cadre d’une procédure de réorganisation judiciaire publique, mais également dans le cadre d’une préparation silencieuse à la faillite.

In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, businesses find themselves at the intersection of technological innovation and geopolitical and economic turbulence. Despite the increased reliance on software systems and digital infrastructure, it remains peculiar that in many EU Member States there's still no clear framework for handling software licenses in insolvency.

En octobre 2020, la Commission européenne a approuvé une mesure de recapitalisation d'environ 833 millions EUR, notifiée par la Suède et le Danemark, en faveur de SAS. Cette mesure était fondée sur l’Encadrement temporaire relatif aux aides d'État dans le contexte de la crise du COVID-19.

In October 2020, the European Commission approved a recapitalisation measure of approximately €833 million, notified by Sweden and Denmark, in favour of SAS. This measure was adopted under the State aid COVID-19 Temporary framework.

Ryanair challenged the Commission decision and secured its annulment by the General Court of the EU in May 2023 (Case T-238/21). In late 2022, SAS entered a collective insolvency proceeding. Following the annulment of the 2020 decision, the Commission approved again in November 2023 the recapitalisation measure.  

On 8 May 2024, the General Court of the EU annulled the Commission decision of 26 July 2021 approving restructuring aid to German airline Condor following an annulment action lodged by Ryanair. The Commission should have opened a formal procedure because of doubts about the compatibility of the aid. The General Court rejected Ryanair’s argument relating to the impact of the aid on its competitive position.

Background

Met een recent arrest van 11 juni 2024 zorgt het hof te Brussel voor een ommekeer in het faillissementsrecht. Het hof oordeelde dat ook een hypotheek, gevestigd op initiatief van de kredietverstrekker op grond van een notariële volmacht na datum van het faillissement, tegenstelbaar is aan de boedel. Het hof gaat daarmee in tegen eerder gevestigde rechtspraak en rechtsleer, die een zeer ruime interpretatie gaf aan de artikelen XX.110 en volgende van het Wetboek Economisch Recht (WER).

The Belgian economy remains vulnerable to the insolvency of significant industrial entities. All creditors - suppliers, customers, contractors alike - should act swiftly to ascertain their position vis-à-vis the bankruptcy estate. It's vital to take proactive steps:

• Can I rely on a retention of title to reclaim my goods?
• Will my pending orders still be delivered?
• Is my contract terminated?
• Should I submit a claim in the estate?

The Belgian Constitutional Court addressed in a recent judgment the treatment of creditors in a collective debt settlement procedure. The central question was whether a different treatment of creditors, depending on whether they benefit from security over financial collateral, can be justified by objective criteria and whether this aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Since the court finds the different treatment unconstitutional, the judgment impacts the enforcement rights of pledgees of financial collateral granted by private individuals.