Op 11 juli 2014 heeft de Hoge Raad bepaald dat vorderingen van een huurder tot het verrichten van onderhoud en tot het verschaffen van huurgenot op zichzelf steunvorderingen kunnen opleveren bij een faillissementsaanvraag (ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1681).
Met de inwerkingtreding van de Wet Claw back op 1 januari 2014 eindigde een periode waarin diverse ondernemingsrechtelijke wetten in werking traden, waaronder de Wet bestuur en toezicht en de Flex-BV wetgeving. Op dit moment bereidt de wetgever enkele nieuwe wetsontwerpen voor. In de meeste gevallen staat daarin de rol van bestuurders en toezichthouders centraal. Zo ook in het voorontwerp Wet bestuur en toezicht rechtspersonen en binnen het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht.
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.
What types of insolvency does the decision affect?
The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.
What about existing cases?
Michael John Andrew Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) (“Game”)
Game has come to the courts against the background of two previous High Court decisions on the treatment of lease rents in administration. Recent decisions on this point have arisen out of cases where landlords made claims for rent in the administration of tenant companies.
In a recent judgment, HHJ Cooke found in favour of the defendant solicitors in a claim by the Trustees in Bankruptcy of Clifford Shore that Irwin Mitchell had failed properly to advise Mr Shore as to the risk of pursuing litigation that was subject to limitation arguments.
Kevin Hellard, Amanda Wade v Irwin Mitchell [2013] EWHC 3008 (Ch)
Background
Recent heeft het Hof van Cassatie de deur iets wijder opengezet voor schuldeisers van een failliete vennootschap om, hangende het faillissement, een individuele vordering in te stellen tegen de bestuurders van de gefailleerde (Cass. 5 september 2013, A.R. nr. C.12.0445.N,www.juridat.be). Concreet mocht de fiscus de niet-betaalde bedrijfsvoorheffing, die opgenomen was in het passief van het faillissement, de facto integraal verhalen op de bestuurders, op grond van foutaansprakelijkheid.
On 9 July 2013 a new law amending the Code of Commerce was enacted in Luxembourg (the “Law”). The Law introduces the right for a depositor to claim the recovery of intangible and non-fungible (i.e., identifiable and separable) goods from a bankrupt company. The parliamentary file aims clearly at including data from a bankrupt cloud computing service provider. The Law sets forth the different conditions to be fulfilled for the entitlement to claim intangible and non-fungible goods from a bankrupt company:
After a company has been declared bankrupt, the liquidator in charge of the bankrupt estate will process personal data on that bankrupt company’s behalf. The liquidator would then be considered a so-called data controller within the meaning of the Dutch Data Protection Act (DDPA).
A Dutch Court of Appeal recently upheld a lower court’s decision that a liquidator has the right to access data concerning the administration of a bankrupt company, the data of which are kept by a third party. It also held that this right, however, does not imply that the third party must provide the data in an orderly manner without being adequately compensated for it.
In a recent case before the Court of Appeal in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the question was raised whether a liquidator should get access to data stored in a cloud, when the company, having a contractual relationship with the cloud provider, has gone into bankruptcy.