In its 18 December 2015 ABN/Marell judgement, the Dutch Supreme Court held that if secured debt is pledged, the holder of that right of pledge has the authority to enforce not only its own pledge but also the security connected with that pledged secured debt. Such chains of secured debt are not uncommon, but often parties are not aware that they exist. According to this new case law, security down the chain can be used in the enforcement of the primary security.

On 5 February 2016 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the fact that a trustee in bankruptcy unlawfully collected pledged receivables has no consequences for the ranking of his salary. That the trustee in this case would profit from his unlawful behaviour (his salary is the highest ranking claim in a bankruptcy) is undesirable, but not enough reason to change the ranking.

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.

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bankruptcy whereby the bankruptcy receiver has wrongfully collected receivables which were pledged to a secured creditor and the total value of the assets of the bankrupt estate was insufficient to pay all debts, the bankruptcy receiver was allowed to recover its salary from the proceeds of that wrongful collection with priority over the claim of that secured creditor.

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.

Introduction

It is often difficult to collect undisputed claims from foreign debtors. Questions arise such as the following:

Blog on The Hague Court of Appeal, 17 February 2015, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:281 (FGH Bank N.V. v. Aannemingsbedrijf Fraanje B.V.)

In Dutch case law it has long been held that the bankruptcy of a Dutch partnership automatically entails the bankruptcy of each of the partners. In a decision that explicitly breaks with previous case law, the Dutch Supreme Court found on 6 February 2015 that the bankruptcy of a Dutch partnership does no longer entail the bankruptcy of its partners.

In its judgment dated 2 September 2014, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that moveable assets obtained subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) should be considered future assets, and that ownership of such assets will be acquired after satisfaction of the relevant condition precedent (typically, full payment of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before acquiring ownership of such assets.

In a judgment dated 20 March 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that all banks and intermediaries involved in the execution of a bank transfer, including the bank responsible for recording receipt of the bank transfer into the account held with it by the payee, qualify as parties whose services are directly or indirectly used by the payor in connection with the bank transfer.