De Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie (“TWTT”) omvat de tijdelijke aanpassing van de wettelijke regeling omtrent turboliquidatie in Boek 2 BW en is gefaseerd in werking getreden op 15 november 2023. De maatregelen die zijn opgenomen in de TWTT zijn van tijdelijke aard en gelden in beginsel voor een periode van twee jaar na de inwerkingtreding, te weten tot 15 november 2025.

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Second Circuit held recently that bankruptcy courts have inherent authority to impose non-nominal civil contempt sanctions, including per diem sanctions and attorneys’ fees, arising out of an attorney’s failure to comply with the bankruptcy court’s discovery orders.

Aanleiding en inhoud TWTT

Een turboliquidatie is de ontbinding op eigen initiatief van een rechtspersoon, waarbij – als de rechtspersoon op het tijdstip van ontbinding geen baten heeft – het tijdstip van de ontbinding samenvalt met de beëindiging van de rechtspersoon. In dat geval hoeft er dus niet te worden vereffend, want er zijn geen baten om te vereffenen. Let op: het voorgaande geldt dus ook als de rechtspersoon nog wel lasten heeft.

Op 12 juli 2022 is het wetsvoorstel Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie (het "wetsvoorstel") ingediend. Het wetvoorstel ziet op de tijdelijke aanpassing van de wettelijke regeling omtrent turboliquidatie en bevindt zich nog in de voorbereidingsfase.

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).

The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.