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.
Obtaining Decree
In most circumstances, court proceedings will need to be raised by creditors to recover outstanding sums owed. Depending on the amount due, the action will be a Small Claim (up to and including £3,000) a Summary Cause (over £3,000 and up to and including £5,000) or an Ordinary Action (over £5,000).
After obtaining a Decree (or judgement in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”.
It was anticipated that more radical thoughts would emerge from Lord Justice Jackson’s latest speech last night to the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association on the subject of rolling out more fixed costs, and so it proved.
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.
In the case of Bibby Factors Northwest Limited v HFD Limited and MCD Group Limited the Court of Appeal has ruled that there is ordinarily no duty on a company whose debt has been purchased (the Debtor) to inform the purchasing company (the Funder) of any pre-existing contractual arrangements it has with the company assigning the debt (the Assignor). If the Funder wants this information it must directly request it.
Implications
On 2 December 2015 the draft bill on modernization of bankruptcy proceedings entered into public consultation. The bill is part of the Dutch legislative programme to improve and modernize bankruptcy law, known as Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking faillissementsrecht in the Netherlands.
Will you be ready for the March 2016 contingent asset submission deadline? Following the publication of the PPF’s draft levy determination for the 2016/17 levy year, we look at what questions you should be asking now to ensure you are prepared for the deadline.
As of 1 January 2015 the harmonized financial institution resolution rules from the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive will be implemented in national Dutch legislation. Among other things these rules confer upon the Dutch Central Bank the so-called "bail-in power". Pursuant to the bail-in instrument, the Dutch Central Bank will have the power to cancel and/or reduce the unsecured liabilities of a financial institution under resolution or convert such liabilities into equity.
In a ruling dated 16 October 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the enforceability of security surplus arrangements in the event a security provider is declared bankrupt. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed that, unlike statutory recourse claims (regresrechten), contractual recourse claims can be construed in such a manner that they come into existence (as conditional claims) before payment by the guarantor of the debt owed by the debtor, after which they become unconditional.
Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court has given an interesting ruling relating to the consequences of commingling (vermenging) of multiple objects for a security right created over one of those objects.
Dutch Supreme Court 14 August 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2192)