In deze blog signaleren wij kort enkele belangwekkende bestuursrechtelijke en omgevingsrechtelijke uitspraken van de afgelopen periode.
Hoge Raad: regeling proceskostenvergoeding voor fiscale bezwaarprocedures mogelijk in strijd met discriminatieverbod (art. 1 Grondwet)
Financial restructurings are becoming increasingly common in the current financial climate, also in the Netherlands. Since the implementation of the Dutch scheme of arrangement on 1 January 2021, a relatively new tool to restructure debts of Dutch corporate entities in order to prevent their insolvency is available in the Netherlands. Under the Dutch scheme of arrangement, a creditors composition is binding on all creditors if a sufficient number of (classes of) creditors vote in favour of the scheme. In principle, the preferential order of priority for secured creditors, e.g.
In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.
The Dutch Supreme Court handed down a judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1751) on 15 December 2023 clarifying whether agreements entered into by a bankruptcy trustee with the approval of the supervisory judge can be affected by an application under Article 69 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (DBA).
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.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
On 25 August 2023, in ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1135, the Supreme Court answered three legal questions relevant to the practice of setoff before and during bankruptcy or a suspension of payments. In this blog, we address the Supreme Court's decisions and consider the implications for legal practice.
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case
Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.
However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.
On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.