As part of a complex series of related transactions, the debtor entered into a note purchase agreement with an investment bank. The agreement specifically disclaimed that the bank was acting as the debtor’s agent or owed the debtor any fiduciary duty. The note proceeds were to be used to pay the debtor’s shareholders to purchase their shares. The investment bank paid the proceeds directly to the shareholders. The trustee sought to avoid the payment as a fraudulent transfer.

Van de lasten onder dwangsom aan Alvat (1997) en DIT (2013) tot het kostenverhaal op Bavin (2014) en North Refinery (2019), de handhaving van milieurecht in faillissementssituaties blijft een uitdaging voor gemeenten, provincies en omgevingsdiensten. De rechtbank Rotterdam wil nu een einde maken aan alle onduidelijkheid.

On 29 September 2020, the Dutch Senate’s justice committee decided that the Dutch Scheme bill can be dealt with as a formality (hamerstuk) without further debate. It did so after the Dutch Government submitted to the Dutch Senate’s justice committee its memorandum of reply (Memorie van Antwoord) regarding the Dutch Scheme, or to use the full title: the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (commonly referred to as the WHOA, after its Dutch acronym). This blog highlights the various topics covered in the memorandum of reply.

 The receivership debtors ran a Ponzi scheme. Acting under the state Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the receiver sued the debtors’ bank to avoid bank deposits as transfers made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. The UFTA defines “transfer” as any mode, direct or in

Si certains employeurs peuvent affronter la crise actuelle en mettant en œuvre un régime de chômage temporaire – consistant soit en une suspension complète du contrat de travail ou en une suspension partielle et partant à l’application d’une réduction du temps de travail – d’autres employeurs sont contraints de procéder à des licenciements. Des mesures complémentaires de soutien ont été adoptées afin de compenser la diminution des activités par une réduction du temps de travail, permettant ainsi de faire baisser le coût du travail sans devoir procéder à des licenciements.

Dutch law provides for an extension of the limitation period in relation to claims that were “deliberately hidden” from the creditor (article 3:321 (f) Dutch Civil Code). The extension also applies if the debtor deliberately hid the fact that the claim had become due and payable (upon fulfilment of a certain condition, for example). It is, however, unclear what kind of conduct qualifies as deliberate hiding.

On 26 May 2020, the Dutch Parliament’s House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) adopted the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord (“WHOA”)). The next step will see the WHOA put to vote in the Senate.

In a recent case, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden dismissed a claim of the bankruptcy trustee of Welsec against an audit firm for failing to ensure that the audited company, Welsec, included a provision in its annual accounts for a third party claim (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:2492).

As mentioned in our earlier blog, the Dutch legislator has prepared a bill – the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord) – which introduces a framework allowing debtors to restructure their debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (the “Dutch Scheme“).

FERC proceeding to restrict rejection of a power purchase agreement may be subject to the automatic stay. The debtor had entered into several agreements to purchase power it no longer needed because its reorganization contemplated its exit from the business of selling electricity at retail. The contracts constituted a minimal portion of the debtor’s power contracts and were an insignificant portion of the power market.