On April 1, a bevy of dollar amounts set forth in the Bankruptcy Code will change. Some of these are quite important to substantive relief, and others are quite important to making sure you don’t look bad in front of the client or your favorite (least favorite?) judge. We have Section 104 of the Bankruptcy Code to thank for this malpractice-inducing enterprise, which we enjoy every three years. See 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a) (“On April 1, 1998, and at each 3-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, each dollar amount in effect under sections . . . shall be adjusted . . . .”).

Editor’s Note:  Here at The Bankruptcy Cave, we love insolvency stuff; we eat it for breakfast and dream about it at night.  (We are not kidding.)  Sometimes that includes credit-related litigation, and so we keep our pre-trial, trial, and appellate skills honed.  To that end, here is a very helpful cheat sheet we prepared and which we bring with us to every deposition, just in case.  (Your author Leah even got to enjoy a no-show deposition in Chicago last year; she created a perfect record using the below.) 

Including an unsecured creditor  in an agreed payments waterfall does not by itself confer on that unsecured creditor  the benefit of a mortgagee’s usual duties on enforcement of security, or a direct claim against the sale proceeds.

You may recall the holding and analysis of ASARCO [1]/ from Jay’s previous post, here.

On 5 February 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court (“Supreme Court“) ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:199) that an estate claim (boedelvordering) based on damage suffered by a pledge holder, caused by the wrongful collection of claims encumbered by a right of pledge by a bankruptcy trustee, does not have priority over the estate claim relating to the remuneration of the trustee.

De wetsvoorstellen civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude behoren tot het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht en zijn gericht op fraudebestrijding.  De verwachting was dat beide wetsvoorstellen op 1 januari 2016 in werking zouden treden, maar dit is niet gehaald.

On 2 December 2015 the draft bill on modernization of bankruptcy proceedings entered into public consultation. The bill is part of the Dutch legislative programme to improve and modernize bankruptcy law, known as Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking faillissementsrecht in the Netherlands.

As of 1 January 2015 the harmonized financial institution resolution rules from the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive will be implemented in national Dutch legislation. Among other things these rules confer upon the Dutch Central Bank the so-called "bail-in power". Pursuant to the bail-in instrument, the Dutch Central Bank will have the power to cancel and/or reduce the unsecured liabilities of a financial institution under resolution or convert such liabilities into equity.

In a ruling dated 16 October 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the enforceability of security surplus arrangements in the event a security provider is declared bankrupt. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed that, unlike statutory recourse claims (regresrechten), contractual recourse claims can be construed in such a manner that they come into existence (as conditional claims) before payment by the guarantor of the debt owed by the debtor, after which they become unconditional.

Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court has given an interesting ruling relating to the consequences of commingling (vermenging) of multiple objects for a security right created over one of those objects.

Dutch Supreme Court 14 August 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2192)