Proposition 51K1906

Projet de loi modifiant le Code des sociétés en vue d'améliorer la procédure de liquidation.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Jean-Jacques Viseur
PS | SP Éric Massin
Vooruit Dylan Casaer, Annemie Roppe

Submission date

July 1, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

firm governed by commercial law liquidation receivership

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 29, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, who am I, of course, after Mr. Massin’s argument and the 105-page report that only covers 7 articles, to intervene for a long time? I am therefore especially grateful to Mr. Massin for being so athletic in stating that his initial bill has nevertheless been “recadred” — his own words — and has come out balanced, after in fact very useful hearings.

I will, of course, limit myself to explaining our role and our vision on this subject a little bit. We thought, although the clearing procedure was to be improved, that it must be noted that the existing system, of course, also often worked correctly. Certain abuses should not have led to the full questioning of the existing clearing procedure. That was our point of view.

So from the beginning we were also concerned about the possibility of an excessive formalization, which would lose the benefits of the system. Of course, we are also very well aware, as Mr. Massin stated, that third parties have their rights, more than ever in a transparent society.

The proposal, after discussion, ultimately provides for two major innovations. On the one hand, the trade court must confirm the appointment of the liquidator. Mr. Massin has explained under what conditions this must be done. On the other hand, the court must be kept informed of the state of liquidation. The distribution of assets must be submitted to the court for agreement.

The further involvement of the Commercial Court in that procedure was undoubtedly a good thing for us. We also found that the role of the general assembly in this should not be neglected. Ultimately, we thought, that a right advocates for shareholders to decide to settle their case.

Given the new balance in the initial proposal, we have agreed to support this bill, which has also been fully approved. That is why my group will back it again in the plenary session.

Do you have any comments following these two brilliant speeches?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague of Justice told me that she could accept the proposals made.