Een aandeelhouder ziet door een faillissement de waarde van de in een vennootschap gehouden aandelen verdampen. Soms maakt de aandeelhouder een derde het verwijt dat deze verantwoordelijk is voor het faillissement en de daardoor voor de aandeelhouder ingetreden schade. Kan die aandeelhouder zijn schade op de derde verhalen? Deze vraag kwam aan de orde in het faillissement van reisorganisatie OAD. De rechtbank Midden-Nederland deed recent uitspraak in een door de aandeelhouder tegen de bank aanhangig gemaakte procedure.
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 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)
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.
Europe has struggled during the last several years to triage a long series of critical blows to the economies of the 28 countries that comprise the European Union, as well as the collective viability of eurozone economies. Here we provide a snapshot of some recent developments regarding insolvency, restructuring, and related issues in the EU.
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.
Update on Dutch partnerships Willemijn Punt The Dutch Supreme Court recently delivered two important and interesting judgments in the matter of partnerships. The first judgment relates to the consequences of bankruptcy of a general partnership or a limited partnership for its partners. The second judgment pertains to a matter that has kept opinions in case law and legal literature divided for a long time, namely whether or not an acceding partner is liable for debts of the partnership going back to a moment in time prior to his or her accession.