The Dutch Supreme Court today confirmed the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals which found that the bankruptcy of Russian oil company Yukos cannot be recognised in the Netherlands because it came about in a manner which violates Dutch public policy. Today's decision marks the end of a court battle that lasted more than a decade.
Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment in which it has given a detailed explanation of the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on a contract or other legal relationship.[1] The case in question involved a dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a bank as to whether the bank could file its post-bankruptcy l
Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment in which it has given a detailed explanation of the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on a contract or other legal relationship.[1] The case in question involved a dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a bank as to whether the bank could file its post-bankruptcy l
De verjaringstermijn van na faillietverklaring vervallende rentevorderingen neemt pas een aanvang na het eindigen van het faillissement. Dat heeft de Hoge Raad op 24 juni 2016 geoordeeld in het arrest Boele's Scheepswerven II. Schuldeisers hoeven de verjaring van rentevorderingen gedurende een (eerste) faillissement dan ook niet te stuiten.
On 16 September 2011 the Netherlands Supreme Court rendered an important judgment regarding the exercise by a bank of its right to reverse a direct debit (LJN BQ873 SNS Bank/Pasman q.q.). In light of this judgment it can be concluded that, in principle, a bank may exercise its right of reversal not only if the direct debit caused the account to be overdrawn or (if an overdraft facility has been granted) the limit to be exceeded, but also if the bank will, as a result of the debtor/payer's bankruptcy, be unable to recover the claim resulting from the direct debit.