The Supreme Court recently issued an interesting ruling in an insolvency case where receivables that had been validly pledged to a bank were unlawfully collected by a bankruptcy trustee. The question was whether the damages claim of the bank against the bankrupt estate would take priority over the foreclosure and settlement costs, including the bankruptcy trustee’s salary.
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 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.
Supreme Court of the Netherlands 11 July 2014 (ABN AMRO vs Berzona)
Introduction
In the corporate inquiry (enquête) procedure of Inter Access the Supreme Court recently confirmed a decision by the Enterprise Chamber where immediate measures were ordered which led to the dilution of a majority shareholder's stake. The managing board of the company was allowed to issue shares without a resolution of the AGM.
1. Introduction
On 16 September 2011 the Netherlands Supreme Court rendered an important judgment regarding the exercise by a bank of its right to reverse a direct debit (LJN BQ873 SNS Bank/Pasman q.q.). In light of this judgment it can be concluded that, in principle, a bank may exercise its right of reversal not only if the direct debit caused the account to be overdrawn or (if an overdraft facility has been granted) the limit to be exceeded, but also if the bank will, as a result of the debtor/payer's bankruptcy, be unable to recover the claim resulting from the direct debit.
In Robt Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh (2019 NZSC 86) the Supreme Court confirmed that the requirements outlined in Section 292 of the Companies Act 1993 are all that is required in order to void an insolvent transaction. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed that there is no additional common law principle stating that the transaction must have diminished the net pool of assets available to creditors.
Facts
The Supreme Court’s decision in McIntosh v Fisk has confirmed how the courts will deal with claw back claims under the voidable transactions regime in the context of Ponzi schemes. Liquidators’ recoveries will be limited to the fictitious profits for which there was no value given.