Short Reads

Supreme Court: Fraudulent conveyance; knowledge of prejudice

Supreme Court: Fraudulent conveyance; knowledge of prejudice

Supreme Court: Fraudulent conveyance; knowledge of prejudice

02.08.2017 NL law

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that both the debtor and any counterparty performing the legal act have knowledge of prejudice to creditors if, at the time of performing the legal act, the bankruptcy of the debtor and a shortfall in the bankruptcy estate is foreseeable. This judgment confirms the Supreme Court's decision of 22 December 2009 (ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI8493).

Supreme Court 7 April 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:635).

After a graphic design company ran into financial difficulties, a reorganization was carried out to avoid a bankruptcy. As one of the company's creditors was not willing to accept a postponement of payments, one of the company's shareholders arranged for this creditor to receive a bank guarantee. In return, the shareholder was provided with a counter guarantee from the company. In addition, the shareholder was provided with a surety (borgtocht) from the company's financier for the performance of the obligations of the company under the counter guarantee and the company, its financier and the shareholder entered into a security surplus arrangement (overwaarde-arrangement). A few weeks later, the company was declared bankrupt. The creditor claimed under the bank guarantee. The financier of the bank guarantee had recourse against the shareholder. In turn, as the company was unable to pay, the shareholder claimed from the company's financier under the security surplus arrangement. The company's financier enforced its security over the assets of the company. This financier also invoked its right of recourse against the surplus security proceeds under the security surplus arrangement.

The bankruptcy trustee (curator) declared the legal acts of entering into the security surplus arrangement to be void under Section 42 of the Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) on the basis of fraudulent conveyance (faillissementspauliana). In the legal proceedings that ensued, the bankruptcy trustee requested the court of first instance to rule, among other things, that these legal acts had been legally voided, which was rejected by the court. The Court of Appeal confirmed this judgment. It considered that the company and the shareholder (who, indirectly and in return for security under the security surplus agreement, provided the credit) did not have to reasonably foresee that the bankruptcy of the company was inevitable and that it could not be concluded that the reorganization was doomed to fail. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that at the time of performing the legal acts the parties had no knowledge of prejudice within the meaning of Section 42 of the Bankruptcy Act.

The bankruptcy trustee lodged an appeal in cassation. The Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeal had applied an incorrect standard to determine whether the parties to the security surplus arrangement had knowledge of prejudice. The Supreme Court ruled that the correct standard is whether at the time the parties entered into the security surplus arrangement, the bankruptcy of the company and a shortfall in the bankruptcy estate was foreseeable with a reasonable degree of probability. Furthermore, the Supreme Court confirmed that this standard equally applies to legal acts performed by parties seeking to avoid a bankruptcy through a financial reorganization.

The judgment serves as a reminder to borrowers and lenders taking measures to avoid bankruptcy. Legal acts performed by a company in financial difficulties and its counterparties may be scrutinized not only at the stage when bankruptcy of the company is inevitable but also at the stage when such bankruptcy is foreseeable with a reasonable degree of probability.

Team

Related news

11.04.2019 NL law
The Dutch UBO register will be introduced in January 2020

Short Reads - On 4 April 2019, a legislative proposal to implement the Dutch Ultimate Beneficial Owner (''UBO'') register (''UBO register'') was submitted to the Dutch parliament. The obligation to introduce a UBO register derives from the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Approximately 1.5 million Dutch legal entities must register information on their UBOs in this register.

Read more

12.03.2019 LU law
Entry into force of the RBE Regulation and update

Articles - The Grand-Ducal Regulation of 15 February 2019 on the registration, payment of administrative fees and access to information recorded in the register of beneficial owners (the “RBE Regulation”) entered into force on 1 March 2019 and depicts the practical aspects of the Law of 13 January 2019 establishing a beneficial owner register (the “RBE Law”). Another document, the LBR Circular 19/01 (the “Circular”) issued by the Luxembourg Business Registers on 25 February 2019  further describes the new register of beneficial owners (the “RBE”) with the aim of helping users. 

Read more

21.03.2019 NL law
15 aspects of Brexit you did not know

Short Reads - A Brexit without a deal, or with a deal that does not cover all relevant aspects, is still a potential scenario. We have highlighted a number of unexpected legal consequences of Brexit in such a no deal or incomplete deal scenario.

Read more

13.03.2019 NL law
Financial Services Disputes in the Netherlands

Articles - What are the most common causes of actions taken by or against financial institutions and service providers in Dutch jurisdiction? Who has a right of action in financial services disputes? Does it make a difference if the customer is an individual or a commercial entity? Is there a specialist court or specialist judges for financial services litigation? Roderik Vrolijk and Daphne Rijkers provide answers to these and other questions about financial services disputes in the Netherlands.

Read more

22.02.2019 BE law
Lost your passport - How a hard Brexit will affect UK financial institutions’ access to the Belgian financial market

Articles - FSMA gives local guidance - Belgian legislature prepares contingency measures The UK is due to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. Unless specific arrangements granting the UK at least a temporary status quo will be adopted before 29 March 2019, the UK financial industry will be considered third-country entities and will therefore be seriously restricted in carrying on their activities in the EEA, including Belgium.

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