Onze recente blogartikels behandelden reeds verschillende onderwerpen omtrent de recente wetswijzigingen voor vennootschappen. Op 1 mei 2019 treden echter ook aangepaste regels in werking voor verenigingen. De VZW-wetgeving in de wet van 1921 op de verenigingen en stichtingen wordt immers mee opgenomen in het Wetboek van Vennootschappen en Verenigingen (hierna: “WVV”). Naast deze codificatie werden ook enkele wijzigingen doorgevoerd.
In het kader van de hervorming van het insolventierecht die op 1 mei 2018 van kracht is geworden, heeft de wetgever een aantal belangrijke wijzigingen doorgevoerd inzake de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders bij een faillissement. De herziene aansprakelijkheidsregels gelden voor bestuurders van vennootschappen en niet voor natuurlijke personen die ondernemingen zijn maar geen vennootschapsstructuur hebben.
1. Aansprakelijkheidsvordering wegens kennelijk grove fout
Sellers and suppliers of movable assets can deal with problems caused by poorly-paying customers through a retention of title clause. This clause makes it contractually possible to stipulate that ownership of a certain good does not transfer until the third party acquirer has paid the full price.
It is interesting to note that the new Law on Pledges has created a better legal framework for the retention of title clause, putting any creditor - assuming a retention of title clause has been included - in a stronger position.
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.
La principale innovation de la loi du 27 mai 2013 modifiant la loi du 31 janvier 2009 sur la continuité des entreprises (« LCE ») réside dans le renforcement considérable des missions dévolues aux professionnels du chiffre.
Dès lors que la pratique révèle que le recours à la réorganisation judiciaire est souvent trop tardif, le législateur a été soucieux que les dirigeants soient informés suffisamment tôt des menaces qui pèsent sur la continuité de leur entreprise.
Until now legal entities serving as board members, directors, or liquidators of companies could choose whether to subject themselves to VAT for the services they rendered. But according to the Belgian VAT administration’s published decision ET.125.180 on 20 November 2014, this optional regime will be abolished from 1 January 2015, making these entities liable for VAT mandatorily.
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”).
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.
John Wasty, John Riihiluoma, Lalita Vaswani and Sam Riihiluoma, Appleby
This is an extract from the 2020 edition of the Americas Restructuring Review, published by Global Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Section 97 of Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 imposes a statutory duty on every director to: (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company; and (b) exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. The test is therefore an objective one using the reasonably prudent person as a comparator (see Focus Insurance Co Ltd v Hardy [1992] Bda LR 25 which appears to suggest that an element of subjectivity may also be considered in Bermuda.