header-logo header-logo

11 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU—Insolvency—Debtor subject to insolvency proceedings

Van Buggenhout and another v Banque Internationale a Luxembourg SA C-251/12

Judges Ilešic (President) (Rapporteur), Jarašiunas, Ó Caoimh, Toader and Fernlund, and V. Tourrès, Administrator, 19 September 2013

Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that a payment made at the behest of a debtor subject to insolvency proceedings to one of the latter’s creditors does not fall within the scope of that provision. 

The underlying dispute concerned a property development company which had its registered office in Antwerp, Belgium. In May 2006, an application to open insolvency proceedings was made in Brussels. Following that application, two cheques were issued for the benefit of the company by two of its debtor companies. Afterwards, the company appointed new directors and acquired a purchase option issued by a Panamanian company, “Kostner”. It opened two accounts with the respondent Luxembourg bank and transferred the cheques into one account then the other. The bank subsequently issued a cheque for Kostner in payment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll