Quoted October 2015 - Edition 105 Current issues relating to accounting law, article 403 liability and insolvency law 2 In this edition • Introducion • Financial reporting • Article 403 liability • Facilitating reorganisations of businesses: Dutch pre-packs and schemes 3 Fourth Directive (78/660/EEC) and the Seventh Directive (83/349/EEC) in relation to individual and consolidated accounts, and Directive 2013/50/EU, which amends a number of the provisions of the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) and the Transparency Directive (2004/109/ EC). 1.
De Hoge Raad heeft twee uitspraken gedaan over de houdbaarheid van het overwaarde-arrangement in faillissement. In het kort stelt de Hoge Raad vast dat in geval van faillissement van de kredietnemer, de financiers gebruik kunnen maken van het overwaarde-arrangement, mits de kredietnemer partij is bij het arrangement.
Overwaarde-arrangement
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 a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.
Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)
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.