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“).

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) – introducing a framework that allows debtors to restructure their debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (the “Dutch Scheme“). We expect this highly-anticipated bill to enter into force by this summer.

On 5 July 2019 the Minister of Justice submitted a bill to parliament that will add a new powerful tool to the Dutch restructuring toolbox. The bill on the “Act on the Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan” is expected to introduce a serious competitor to the UK’s Scheme of Arrangement and the USA’s Chapter 11. The introduction of the bill will move one step closer on 26 September 2019, when members of the parliament are scheduled to submit their questions and remarks on the bill to parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice and Security.

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera, de 22 de mayo, remarca que determinados comportamientos constitutivos de calificación culpable del concurso pueden provocar una inversión de la carga de la prueba sobre la incidencia del comportamiento de los administradores en la generación o incremento del déficit concursal, pero sigue sin ofrecer la «justificación añadida» de la atribución de la responsabilidad concursal.

1. La reforma del artículo 172 bis de la Ley Concursal

Se contiene una descripción y valoración general de la Directiva (UE) 2019/1023.

1. Introducción

En todo tipo de procesos y, entre ellos, en los incidentes concursales, la denuncia por la parte demandada de la falta de jurisdicción o de competencia no puede plantearse como una suerte de excepción en la contestación a la demanda o en momento posterior, sino que debe promoverse con carácter previo a la contestación, mediante declinatoria (art. 64.1 Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil [LEC]).

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 710/2019, de 8 de marzo, resuelve en casación, por primera vez, creo, el extremo relativo a la oponibilidad al concurso de una condición resolutoria acompañada de una cláusula penal de retención de la totalidad del precio ya pagado por el comprador inmobiliario insolvente. Según la Sala, la condición resolutoria (inmobiliaria) es plenamente oponible al concurso; en este caso se hallaba inscrita, pero no parece que esta condición haya sido relevante para su efectividad.