Met de inwerkingtreding van de Wet Claw back op 1 januari 2014 eindigde een periode waarin diverse ondernemingsrechtelijke wetten in werking traden, waaronder de Wet bestuur en toezicht en de Flex-BV wetgeving. Op dit moment bereidt de wetgever enkele nieuwe wetsontwerpen voor. In de meeste gevallen staat daarin de rol van bestuurders en toezichthouders centraal. Zo ook in het voorontwerp Wet bestuur en toezicht rechtspersonen en binnen het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht. 

On January 17, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling in Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 13-13087 (KG), which highlights potential risks to both secured creditors and purchasers of claims in bankruptcy section 363 sales. The facts in Fisker are straightforward. Fisker was founded in 2007 to make high-end electric cars and was financed principally with federal and state government loans secured by some, but not all, of Fisker’s assets.

In In re KB Toys,¹ a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)² if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,³ the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.

Recent heeft het Hof van Cassatie de deur iets wijder opengezet voor schuldeisers van een failliete vennootschap om, hangende het faillissement, een individuele vordering in te stellen tegen de bestuurders van de gefailleerde (Cass. 5 september 2013, A.R. nr. C.12.0445.N,www.juridat.be). Concreet mocht de fiscus de niet-betaalde bedrijfsvoorheffing, die opgenomen was in het passief van het faillissement, de facto integraal verhalen op de bestuurders, op grond van foutaansprakelijkheid.

An employer that sponsors a single-employer defined benefit pension plan was acquired by a Japanese parent.  The employer entered into bankruptcy and, as part of the proceedings, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) terminated the pension plan.  The PBGC then sought in federal court to recover the amount of the unfunded liability from the Japanese parent.  The PBGC also sought payment of the termination premium designed to be payable when a reorganizing company emerges from bankruptcy and to collect that premium from the parent.  The pare

On 9 July 2013 a new law amending the Code of Commerce was enacted in Luxembourg (the “Law”). The Law introduces the right for a depositor to claim the recovery of intangible and non-fungible (i.e., identifiable and separable) goods from a bankrupt company. The parliamentary file aims clearly at including data from a bankrupt cloud computing service provider. The Law sets forth the different conditions to be fulfilled for the entitlement to claim intangible and non-fungible goods from a bankrupt company:

On July 24, 2013 the First Circuit Court of Appeals, applying an “investment plus” test, concluded that a Sun Capital private equity investment fund was engaged in a “trade or business” for purposes of determining whether the fund could be jointly and severally liable under ERISA for the unfunded pension withdrawal liability of the portfolio company.¹ Two Sun Capital investment funds, conveniently named Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP, (“Fund IV”) (the “Sun Funds”) collectively owned 100 percent of Scott Brass, Inc.

The absolute priority rule ordinarily prevents a Chapter 11 debtor from distributing any money or property to junior creditors and old equity investors unless all senior creditors have first been paid in full. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). Nevertheless, old equity investors may attempt to receive new equity in the reorganized debtor in consideration for providing new (post-bankruptcy) investments in the debtor.

After a company has been declared bankrupt, the liquidator in charge of the bankrupt estate will process personal data on that bankrupt company’s behalf. The liquidator would then be considered a so-called data controller within the meaning of the Dutch Data Protection Act (DDPA).

A Dutch Court of Appeal recently upheld a lower court’s decision that a liquidator has the right to access data concerning the administration of a bankrupt company, the data of which are kept by a third party. It also held that this right, however, does not imply that the third party must provide the data in an orderly manner without being adequately compensated for it.