On March 8 2010 the Amsterdam District Court dismissed an application by the administrators of the Dutch branch of Landsbanki hf to extend the term of the emergency regulations that had been declared applicable to the Dutch branch by the court on October 13 2008.(1) As a result, the regulations ceased to apply on March 13 2010.
Facts
On October 13 2008 the Amsterdam District Court declared the emergency regulations underthe Financial Supervision Act applicable to the Dutch branch of Landsbanki (Icesave).(1) This update looks at:
In cross border financing transactions, a secured creditor should be aware of Dutch law specifics when dealing with a Dutch obligor in financial distress. Below is a highlighted list of specifics for a secured creditor planning to foreclose on its security or when seeking to improve its security position.
Improving security position
Existing Dutch security documents typically provide for possibilities for improving the position of a secured creditor in case of an event of default.
Getting a tighter grip on collateral
Introduction
On November 1 2007 the State Commission for Insolvency Law presented the Preliminary Bill for an Insolvency Act to the minister of justice. The most important changes to the existing Bankruptcy Act are outlined in this update.
In our June 2015 update we reported on the Court of Appeal decision in which Mr Gilbert was held personally liable for body corporate levies, as a receiver of QSM Trustees Limited (QSMTL). QSMTL owned units in a unit title complex. The Body Corporate sought to exercise its statutory power and impose levies on Mr Gilbert personally, as receiver of QSMTL.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Steel & Tube Holdings Limited (STH) against the legal basis and quantum of a $750,000 judgment based on a “de facto amalgamation” with its subsidiary company.
The ruling reinforces the message from the High Court that directors must be careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence if they are to protect the parent against liability for the subsidiary’s debts.
The context
Mr and Ms Moncur were the sole directors and effective owners of Monocrane NZ (Monocrane). Following their separation, they entered into a relationship property agreement under which Mr Moncur assumed full ownership and control of Monocrane, including agreeing to assume sole responsibility for the overdrawn shareholders' current account. In return, Ms Moncur agreed to resign her directorship, transfer her shares to Mr Moncur and pay various joint debts.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Chamber One, Number 134/2016, 04 March