Avoidance action is an umbrella term for adversary proceedings that seek to unwind or avoid transactions that occurred before an insolvency filing. These actions are also referred to as “claw-back claims” because, by undoing a transaction, an asset or value is being clawed back into the insolvency estate.

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).

金杜合伙人苏萌律师应联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）邀请作为碳交易及金融领域专家，于2024年1月31日和2月1日参加在维也纳举行的联合国贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）专家组与国际统一私法协会（UNIDROIT）工作组关于自愿碳信用（VCC）法律性质的联席会议[1]。在联席会议上，苏律师就工作报告内容参与讨论并发表观点，并就中国自愿碳市场发展状况对研究报告做出修订和补充。

The Scottish Court of Session has, for the first time, considered what is required to establish a ‘liability’ for the purposes of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”). In this matter, the Court found that a ‘decree in default’, issued due to the insolvent Insured’s failed to appear at a procedural hearing, was sufficient to establish ‘liability’.

This is the first 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 first article is on how special masters are already utilized, effectively, by federal district courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (titled, “Masters”).[Fn. 1]

Special Masters in Federal Courts

–A Brief History

When a company is on the brink of entering into insolvency proceedings the tax impact, understandably, may not be at the forefront of everyone’s mind and so may be overlooked. However, entry into liquidation or administration or the appointment of a receiver can have an adverse impact on, and sever, UK tax groups. This can result in (unexpected) tax leakage and further depletion of assets, adding greater pressure to the distressed situation.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its first judgment relating to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006: Re AGPS Bondco Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 24. Restructuring plans were a 2020 innovation in UK insolvency law, as described in our earlier alert.

There are two mechanisms through which a creditor may net amounts owed to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor -- setoff and recoupment. These mechanisms are distinct and are treated very differently in a bankruptcy setting.

Key Issues

Setoff. Setoff is a right based in state law that allows parties to apply their mutual debts against each other. These rights are preserved in bankruptcy through Section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which does not create any federal right of setoff, but leaves such state law rights undisturbed.

(Moderate) Verschärfung der Haftung für Geschäftsleiter durch das StaRUG.

Am 17. Dezember 2020 hatte der Bundestag das Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung des Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrechts (SanInsFoG) beschlossen. Zentraler Bestandteil des SanInsFoG sind die Vorschriften des Gesetzes über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen (StaRUG).

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