Articles

Senate agrees with bills on bankruptcy fraud

Senate agrees with bills on bankruptcy fraud

Senate agrees with bills on bankruptcy fraud

04.05.2016 NL law

 

On 5 April 2016 the Senate approved two of the three legislative proposals aiming to combat bankruptcy fraud by :

  1. introducing director disqualification under civil law (‘Wet civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod’, Kamerstukken II 2013/14, 34 011 )
  2. revising the criminalization of bankruptcy fraud (‘Wet herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude’, Kamerstukken II 2013/14, 33 994

These proposals are part of the legislative programme entitled ‘Reassessment of bankruptcy law’ (‘Herijking faillissementsrecht’) and are expected to enter  into force on 1 July 2016.

With the introduction of the bill on director disqualification under civil law, it becomes possible to disqualify directors for up to five years for committing bankruptcy fraud or misconduct before the commencement of the bankruptcy. Disqualified directors are not allowed to act in their capacity as a director during the disqualification period and are also not allowed to join another organization as a director or supervisory director. With this measure the government aims to combat bankruptcy fraud and irregularities surrounding bankruptcy and prevent fraudulent directors from continuing their activities. A director disqualification is imposed by the civil court at the request of either the Public Ministry or the trustee under the bankruptcy of a legal entity of which the person in question was the director.

The second bill on the revision of the criminalization of bankruptcy fraud seeks to introduce more criminal law options to tackle bankruptcy fraud. To further increase the effectiveness of the fight against bankruptcy, existing criminal bankruptcy provisions will be modernized and legal instruments expanded so that, for example, breaching the obligation to keep records or authorizing excessive spending prior to bankruptcy resulting in a disadvantage for creditors will become criminal offences.

The third bill intended to combat bankruptcy fraud  is currently pending in the House and aims to strengthen the position of the trustee in bankruptcy (‘Wet versterking positie curator’, Kamerstukken II 2014/15, 34 253) by a variety of measures including  the expansion of information and cooperation obligations. As a result of this bill, a trustee in bankruptcy will have more options  to detect and tackle irregularities surrounding bankruptcy.

The ‘Reassessment of bankruptcy law’ programme includes a total of seven legislative proposals, which are intended to strengthen the reorganizing ability of companies and modernize bankruptcy law and combat bankruptcy fraud at the same time.

The post “Senate agrees with bills on bankruptcy fraud” is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl

Related news

20.06.2019 NL law
Stibbe advises Westermeerwind

Inside Stibbe - The District Court Midden-Nederland ruled in favour of Westermeerwind B.V. on 19 June, in a case brought by organisations acting for the 'Westermeerwind Group'. The group had claimed that the 32 members of that group had the right to participate in the Windpark Westermeerwind at a much lower price than other participants, and with a different corporate structure.

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

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

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

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

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

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