On 16 September 2011 the Netherlands Supreme Court rendered an important judgment regarding the exercise by a bank of its right to reverse a direct debit (LJN BQ873 SNS Bank/Pasman q.q.). In light of this judgment it can be concluded that, in principle, a bank may exercise its right of reversal not only if the direct debit caused the account to be overdrawn or (if an overdraft facility has been granted) the limit to be exceeded, but also if the bank will, as a result of the debtor/payer's bankruptcy, be unable to recover the claim resulting from the direct debit.
Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".
1. Introduction
As reported in our recent e-update on the case of Echelon Wealth Management Limited (in liquidation), Lord Glennie has determined that liquidators who are removed from office have no right to retain assets as security for remuneration and costs. Lord Glennie then went on to consider how the court, in determining the level of a liquidator’s remuneration, should view the conduct of the liquidator.
In a recent case in relation to the liquidation of Echelon Wealth Management Limited ("E"), Lord Glennie has decided that upon removal as liquidator, a former liquidator may not retain from the assets of the liquidated company any sum as security for costs.
The Facts
S&C were appointed joint liquidators of E at a creditors meeting on 16 December 2008. At a creditors meeting on 22 July 2009, they were then removed from office with new joint liquidators being appointed.
In its ministerial statement this week in relation to its consultation on the proposals for a restructuring moratorium, the Government has indicated that it now proposes to consider implementing measures to tackle the unreasonable use of termination clauses in insolvencies.
What Are Termination Clauses?
Termination clauses are, of course, found in most commercial agreements and are a means by which a party may terminate an agreement on the occurrence of certain events (invariably including insolvency of the other party).
In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.
The Facts
This newsletter discusses the draft legislative proposal for a Financial Institutions (Special Measures) Act (Wet bijzondere maatregelen financiële ondernemingen; "Intervention Act") that was recently published for consultation along with a draft explanatory memorandum and a document containing specific questions. The draft proposal would broaden the powers of the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank; "DNB") and the Minister of Finance to intervene at financial institutions that are experiencing "serious problems".
The recent Court of Session case of Tayplan Limited (in administration) v Smith, is particularly interesting as it is a case where the administrator chose to pursue directors for breach of fiduciary duties rather than using any of the more common statutory remedies.
The Facts
Tayplan Limited was a family business with two directors - Mr Smith senior and Mr Smith junior. Mr Smith senior and his wife each held 50% of the shares in the Company.