Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor’s possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

1. Introduction

In zijn conclusie van 7 november 2018 formuleert raadsheer advocaat-generaal Widdershoven vijf vuistregels die richtinggevend zouden moeten zijn bij het leerstuk van ‘afgeleid belang’ in het kader van het belanghebbendebegrip in de Algemene wet bestuursrecht (art. 1:2 lid 1 Awb).

Belanghebbendebegrip en afgeleid belang

The U.S. Supreme Court recently scrutinized the proper application of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code1 in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting Inc.2 While the Supreme Court's decision narrowed the reach of the safe harbor, it did little to change the landscape for the multi-billion dollar U.S. structured finance industry, including warehouse lending.

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court in a significant ruling held in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. that transfers of property of a debtor in which financial institutions are mere conduits or intermediaries may be avoidable. The Court ruled that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code do not protect such transfers from avoidance.

Het voorontwerp Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord ter voorkoming van faillissement moet het een in financieel zwaar weer verkerende onderneming mogelijk maken om buiten faillissement of surseance haar schulden te saneren door een akkoord op te leggen aan alle schuldeisers. Een faillissement kan hiermee worden voorkomen. De rechten van schuldeisers en aandeelhouders kunnen hierbij worden gewijzigd.

Introduction

On 17 November 2017, the Supreme Court confirmed the existing case law that if employees are entitled to payment in cash for unused leave due to the bankruptcy of their employer, such claims are considered to be estate debts, regardless of when the entitlement to such leave accrued (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2907). This ruling was given as a response to a request for a preliminary ruling by the Leiden Subdistrict Court.

On 24 November 2017, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event a suspension of payments is converted into a bankruptcy, interest that accrues after the suspension of payments was granted, but before the debtor was declared bankrupt, can be presented to the bankruptcy trustee for verification (HR 24 November 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2991).

Nu de verkoop van de inventaris meer dan een jaar voor het faillissement heeft plaatsgevonden, is het bewijsvermoeden van art. 43 Fw niet van toepassing. De stelplicht en de bewijslast ten aanzien van het paulianeus handelen rusten dan ook op de curator. De enkele omstandigheid dat het niet goed ging met de onderneming, betekent nog niet dat op dat moment te voorzien was dat een faillissement onafwendbaar was.

The Bankruptcy Code prohibits a chapter 13 debtor from modifying a mortgage lien on the debtor's principal residence. Even in situations in which a secured creditor fails to file a proof of claim or otherwise participate in the bankruptcy proceeding, the Bankruptcy Code allows a secured creditor's lien on a primary residence to pass through the bankruptcy unaffected. However, a recent decision from a bankruptcy court in Texas illustrates the risks to secured creditors of blind reliance on these statutory protections.