Articles

Dienen showroommodellen tot ‘stoffering’ in de zin van art. 22 lid 3 Invorderingswet 1990?

Dienen showroommodellen tot ‘stoffering’ in de zin van art. 22 lid 3 Invorderingswet 1990?

Dienen showroommodellen tot ‘stoffering’ in de zin van art. 22 lid 3 Invorderingswet 1990?

01.03.2012 NL law

Related news

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

13.06.2019 NL law
EU reshaping the restructuring landscape? Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency approved by EU Council

Short Reads - The Council of the European Union adopted a proposal for a Directive on restructuring and insolvency (2016/0359 (COD) on 6 June 2019. The Directive will enter into force twenty days after it is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. From that date, Member States will have two years to implement the substantive parts of the Directive in their national legislation, although a one year extension can be granted.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring