With the enactment of the Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (the “LCM”) in 2000, Mexico took a dramatic step towards modernizing its bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Several years later, in 2007, Mexico took additional steps by enacting a number of reforms aimed to create or clarify the legal framework regarding various important topics that were novel in Mexico, including implementation of a process to obtain approval of pre-negotiated plans.  

Bankruptcy and reorganization are the two primary procedures available for solving a collective action problem in dealing with financially troubled debtors, and both are regulated by the Montenegrin Insolvency Act. Bankruptcy envisages settlement with creditors by sale of the debtor’s assets or sale of the debtor as a legal entity, while reorganization involves settlement with creditors in accordance with an adopted reorganization plan which redefines mutual debtor-creditor relations.

The Moldovan Parliament adopted a new insolvency law on 29 June 2012. The In-solvency Act No. 149 (Act No. 149), which will enter into force on 14 March 2013, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, as its main goal appears to be the optimiza-tion of the existing insolvency procedures.

Following the new act’s entry into force, insolvency cases shall fall under the compe-tence of the court of appeal where the seat of the debtor is located. Also each such court of appeal shall hold a public register of insolvency cases.

Timing

In general, creditors in Montenegro may secure their claims by various types of security over debtors’ assets, such as pledge (zaloga), mortgage (hipoteka), suretyship (jemstvo), bills of exchange (menica), etc.

Introduction

It is often difficult to collect undisputed claims from foreign debtors. Questions arise such as the following:

Blog on The Hague Court of Appeal, 17 February 2015, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:281 (FGH Bank N.V. v. Aannemingsbedrijf Fraanje B.V.)

In a ruling dated 16 October 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the enforceability of security surplus arrangements in the event a security provider is declared bankrupt. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed that, unlike statutory recourse claims (regresrechten), contractual recourse claims can be construed in such a manner that they come into existence (as conditional claims) before payment by the guarantor of the debt owed by the debtor, after which they become unconditional.

In a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)

Today, the draft bill on the continuity of companies II (Wet continuïteit ondernemingen II) went into public consultation. The bill is based on a proposal in 2013 by Ruud Hermans and Reinout Vriesendorp of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek and was discussed with experts from stakeholders. The bill provides for a restructuring procedure inspired by international restructuring practices, in particular English scheme of arrangement and US Chapter 11 proceedings. The bill provides for one of the most significant amendments of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act in decades.

In recent years Dutch banks have established a practice of creating undisclosed rights of pledge (stil pandrecht) on all current and future receivables of their borrowers in an easy way and without the borrower's involvement. In the Supreme Court's ruling of 3 February 2012 (HR 3 February 2012, LJN BT6947), this practice was unsuccessfully put to the test by a bankruptcy trustee, who contested the alleged right of pledge of ING Bank on receivables of its bankrupt client.