According to Section 1445 of the Belgian Judicial Code (JC), any creditor can, on the basis of authentic or private documents, levy a (conservatory) garnishment on the sums or goods a third party owes to its debtor. After notification of the garnishment order, the third-party garnishee can no longer hand over these sums and/or goods to the debtor (Section 1451 JC).
Conservatory garnishments are typically used by creditors to put pressure on their debtor (eg notifying a garnishee order to a debtor’s bank, which then freezes the debtor’s accounts).
Key Takeaways
This overview is intended as an introductory summary to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), Canada’s principal statute for the reorganization of a large insolvency corporation. The CCAA applies in every province and territory of Canada, and even purports to have worldwide jurisdiction.
Introduction
Following on from the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana (discussed here), the recent UK High Court (UKHC) decision in Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch), further considered the duty of directors to take into account the interests of creditors in certain circumstances.
The purpose of the Vifo Act (the Wet veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames (Vifo)) is to establish rules by which risks arising from certain acquisition activities can be controlled. The Bureau Toetsing Investeringen (BTI) has published three manuals explaining the following three criteria as mentioned in the Vifo Act: internal restructuring, acquisition of assets and active in sensitive technology.
A common defense to a fraudulent transfer claim in bankruptcy concerning a securities transaction is the “safe harbor” defense under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In a unique twist, a post-confirmation trust in Delaware recently argued that the safe harbor defense should not be available if the underlying transaction was illegal under the law where the debtor/transferor was incorporated.
This is the second in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this second article is on how the exclusion of special masters from bankruptcy cases: (i) is without a sound reason, and (ii) is based on a history of haste and uncertainty.[Fn. 1]
Bankruptcy Rule 9031—The Prohibition
The recent judgment of HHJ Richard Williams, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Loveridge v Povey & Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) deals with what he described as a bitter dispute over the Loveridge family business. The business concerned was the operation of caravan parks in Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Shropshire, in part through five companies, and in part through three partnerships at will. The companies made use of interest-free inter-company loans repayable on demand