On March 11, 2016, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a distressed company’s termination of a lease pursuant to an agreement with its landlord and the relinquishment of its leasehold interest to its landlord constituted “transfers” that may be avoidable as fraudulent transfers and preferences under the Bankruptcy Code. The decision, Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. T.D. Invs. I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP, 816 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2016)), serves as a cautionary tale for landlords dealing with distressed tenants.
Background
In the event of bankruptcy, creditors are entitled to disclosure of the bookkeeping of the estate under certain conditions. In its decision dated 8 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:612), the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that this right is limited and depends on the purpose of the disclosure. Creditors are not entitled to disclosure if the purpose is to retrieve information to support their claim against a third party.
Al sinds 2004 schrijft de MiFID richtlijn voor dat dat beleggingsondernemingen financiële instrumenten (waaronder verhandelbare derivaten) veilig en bankruptcy remote moeten aanhouden voor hun cliënten. In 2005 bleek waarom: bij het faillissement van Van der Hoop Bankiers bleek dat beleggers geen aanspraak meer hadden op hun derivaten, maar concurrent schuldeiser van de bank waren geworden.
De Minister van Justitie beloofde daarop met wettelijke bescherming te komen. Die is er nu.
Geen afgescheiden vermogen
Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law, April 2016 (Covering cases reported through 545 B.R. 785 and 810 F.3d 860) RICHARD LEVIN Partner +1 (212) 891-1601 [email protected] © Copyright 2016 Jenner & Block LLP. 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Jenner & Block is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bankruptcy whereby the bankruptcy receiver has wrongfully collected receivables which were pledged to a secured creditor and the total value of the assets of the bankrupt estate was insufficient to pay all debts, the bankruptcy receiver was allowed to recover its salary from the proceeds of that wrongful collection with priority over the claim of that secured creditor.
In re China Medical Technologies, Inc., 539 B.R. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (No. 12-BR-13736)において、倒産手続 における会社の清算人は、同社の監査委員会に向けて外部弁護士が実施した倒産前の内部調査に関連 する資料にアクセスすることを求めた。破産裁判所は、外部弁護士に対し、秘匿特権で保護されない 資料の提出を命じたが、弁護士と依頼人の間の秘匿特権や職務活動の法理（ワークプロダクトの法 理）で保護される資料については提出を命じなかった。清算人は、提出が命じられなかったこれらの 資料につき、控訴した。当事者は、本件で先例となる秘匿特権についての判例はCFTC v.
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.
Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law, January 2016 (Covering cases reported through 541 B.R. 768 and 804 F.3d 977) RICHARD LEVIN Partner +1 (212) 891-1601 [email protected] © Copyright 2016 Jenner & Block LLP. 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Jenner & Block is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In In re China Medical Technologies, Inc.,539 B.R. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (No.
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.