In deze blog signaleren wij kort enkele belangwekkende bestuursrechtelijke en omgevingsrechtelijke uitspraken van de afgelopen periode. 

Hoge Raad: regeling proceskostenvergoeding voor fiscale bezwaarprocedures mogelijk in strijd met discriminatieverbod (art. 1 Grondwet) 

Financial restructurings are becoming increasingly common in the current financial climate, also in the Netherlands. Since the implementation of the Dutch scheme of arrangement on 1 January 2021, a relatively new tool to restructure debts of Dutch corporate entities in order to prevent their insolvency is available in the Netherlands. Under the Dutch scheme of arrangement, a creditors composition is binding on all creditors if a sufficient number of (classes of) creditors vote in favour of the scheme. In principle, the preferential order of priority for secured creditors, e.g.

The Dutch Supreme Court handed down a judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1751) on 15 December 2023 clarifying whether agreements entered into by a bankruptcy trustee with the approval of the supervisory judge can be affected by an application under Article 69 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (DBA).

De Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie (“TWTT”) omvat de tijdelijke aanpassing van de wettelijke regeling omtrent turboliquidatie in Boek 2 BW en is gefaseerd in werking getreden op 15 november 2023. De maatregelen die zijn opgenomen in de TWTT zijn van tijdelijke aard en gelden in beginsel voor een periode van twee jaar na de inwerkingtreding, te weten tot 15 november 2025.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

On 25 August 2023, in ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1135, the Supreme Court answered three legal questions relevant to the practice of setoff before and during bankruptcy or a suspension of payments. In this blog, we address the Supreme Court's decisions and consider the implications for legal practice.

This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.

Het faillissement van Heiploeg uit 2014 is een bron van principiële geschillen en procedures. Deze Heiploeg-uitspraak werpt de vraag op onder welke voorwaarden een (door de Europese Commissie) aan Heiploeg opgelegde kartelboete kan worden verhaald op een (in dit geval gewezen) bestuurder. In de literatuur is vanuit meerdere invalshoeken de nodige aandacht besteed aan de mogelijkheid om op grond van het mededingingsrecht een boete op te leggen aan bestuurders en andere feitelijk leidinggevenden.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.