In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that both the debtor and any counterparty performing the legal act have knowledge of prejudice to creditors if, at the time of performing the legal act, the bankruptcy of the debtor and a shortfall in the bankruptcy estate is foreseeable. This judgment confirms the Supreme Court's decision of 22 December 2009 (ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI8493).

The District Court of Oost-Brabant: At the time of collection, if a trustee in bankruptcy has collected enforcement proceeds from receivables pledged under an undisclosed right of pledge over receivables, the pledgee of the undisclosed right of pledge remains entitled to claim such proceeds from the trustee in bankruptcy, provided it has not collected the proceeds in its capacity as representative of the insolvent pledgor. The claim, however, only applies to proceeds which have been paid directly into the liquidation account.

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims, holding that the defendant’s conduct—filing proofs of claim based on time-barred debts—does not violate the FDCPA. SeeIn re Dubois, 2016 WL4474156 (4^th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016). In the case, each of the two plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and the defendant filed proofs of claim in the plaintiffs’ cases.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the loan was accelerated could still be within the applicable statute of limitations. SeeIn re: Gordon Allen Washington; Gordon Allen Washington v. Bank of New York Mellon, As Tr. for the Certificate-Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5, 2016 WL 5827439 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2016). In the case, the borrowed executed a mortgage and promissory note in February 2007.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.  See Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2016 WL 3672073 (8th Cir.

In a recent judgment the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the holder (an "Estate Claim Pledgee") of a right of pledge (an "Estate Claim Pledge") which secures one or more estate claims (each, a "Secured Estate Claim") is entitled to satisfy such claims out of the proceeds resulting from enforcement of such right of pledge ("Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds") during the pledgor's bankruptcy provided that the claims have arisen from a legal relationship having come into existence prior to the bankruptcy.

Dutch Supreme Court 15 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:665)

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a party who purchases and accepts the transfer of moveable assets subject to a retention of title acquires a right of conditional ownership with respect to those moveable assets and has the power to create an unconditional right of pledge over such right of conditional ownership.

1. Inleiding

Dit is onze halfjaarlijkse nieuwsbrief over ontwikkelingen op het gebied van het Nederlandse vennootschaps- en ondernemingsrecht. In deze Corporate Update geven wij eerst een overzicht van enkele wetswijzigingen. Verder gaan we in op de stand van zaken van een aantal lopende wetsvoorstellen en tot slot signaleren wij nog enkele overige actualiteiten.

In the event of bankruptcy, creditors are entitled to disclosure of the bookkeeping of the estate under certain conditions. In its decision dated 8 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:612), the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that this right is limited and depends on the purpose of the disclosure. Creditors are not entitled to disclosure if the purpose is to retrieve information to support their claim against a third party.

Al sinds 2004 schrijft de MiFID richtlijn voor dat dat beleggingsondernemingen financiële instrumenten (waaronder verhandelbare derivaten) veilig en bankruptcy remote moeten aanhouden voor hun cliënten. In 2005 bleek waarom: bij het faillissement van Van der Hoop Bankiers bleek dat beleggers geen aanspraak meer hadden op hun derivaten, maar concurrent schuldeiser van de bank waren geworden.

De Minister van Justitie beloofde daarop met wettelijke bescherming te komen. Die is er nu.

Geen afgescheiden vermogen