The liability of directors of major organisations receives wide coverage in the press. Examples (in the Netherlands) are Imtech, HDI, FC Twente, Vestia, and Meavita. But the subject really concerns directors of all legal entities, large and small. In this issue of Quoted, we refresh your knowledge of directors' liability and address recent developments, such as case law on `corporate directors' (legal entities which are appointed directors of other entities), the Bill for Management and Supervision of Legal Entities and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In de pers gaat het veelal over de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders van grotere organisaties zoals Imtech, HDI, FC Twente, Vestia en Meavita. In werkelijkheid gaat dit onderwerp bestuurders aan van alle rechtspersonen: van groot tot klein. Met deze Genoteerd frissen wij uw kennis op over de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders. Wij staan ook stil bij belangrijke relevante recente ontwikkelingen, zoals rechtspraak over de zogeheten rechtspersoon-bestuurder, het Wetsvoorstel bestuur en toezicht rechtspersonen en de Algemene verordening gegevensverwerking.

A New Jersey District Court recently addressed several issues in connection with the appointment of a future claims representative (“FCR”). In light of the recent increase in mass-tort bankruptcy cases, exploring these issues is timely.

Background

Background

Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.

Op 7 juni 2019 heeft de Hoge Raad uitspraak gedaan in een procedure over de niet-voortzettingseis in de liquidatieverliesregeling die Loyens & Loeff namens een cliënt heeft gevoerd tegen de Belastingdienst.

Op grond van een Europese richtlijn gelden specifieke regels die beogen om werknemers te beschermen als er sprake is van een bedrijfsovername die in juridische zin aangemerkt kan worden als ‘overgang van onderneming’ (OVO). Deze bescherming geldt echter niet indien de werkgever in staat van faillissement is verklaard.

A recent decision out of the District Court for the Southern District of New York may bring greater certainty to the interpretation of what constitutes a “financial institution” in connection with the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code. The decision, In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69081 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

Merit Management

Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky et al., is a New York case which gets to the heart of the enforceability of classic single-purpose entity restrictions in commercial real estate lending. At issue is how far a third-party may go to cause a violation of a borrower’s SPE covenants, and whether those covenants are enforceable at all.

A Defaulted Construction Loan and Frustrated Attempts to Foreclose:

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?