Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:38:22.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supreme Court, 24 October 1997, Gustafsen (receiver for BBB Dredging GmbH) v. Gerrit Mosk trading as Mosk Kraanverhuur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Titia M. Bos
Titia M. Bos
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Economics, University of Amsterdam
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Netherlands Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of Private International Law
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , August 1998 , pp. 262 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. As early as 1981, the District Court of Leeuwarden had declared the applicability of foreign bankruptcy law to a ‘bankruptcy pauliana’ based on a claim by a foreign (in this case German) receiver. (District Court of Leeuwarden, 22 October 1981, NIPR 1983, 202). See also Bos, T.M., note on cross-border insolvency, 42 NILR (1995) pp. 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. The Netherlands Supreme Court, 15 April 1955, NJ 1955, 542, note by Hijmans van den Bergh (‘Comfin’).

3. This system is sometimes also referred to as the ‘Raubsystem’: see Hanisch, H., ‘Vollmacht und Auskunft des Insolvenzschuldners über sein Auslandsvermögen’, 14 IPRax (1994) p. 353Google Scholar; or as the ‘grab rule’: see Westbrook, J.L., ‘The Lessons of Maxwell Communication’, 64 Fordham Law Review (1996) p. 2532.Google Scholar

4. H.L.E. Verhagen believes that when entering into international contracts, a company must take account of the fact that foreign bankruptcy law may be applicable, with everything which that implies for the agreements entered into. (H.L.E. Verhagen in his Note to the conclusion of the ‘Advocaat-Generaal’, 27 June 1997, Jurisprudentie Onderneming & Recht 1997, 116). For the Choice-of-Law Problem, see also Westbrook, loc. cit. n. 3, at pp. 2533–2534.

5. The German Supreme Court, 30 April 1992, IPRspr. 1992 No. 265, IPRax 1993, 87. See also Hanisch, H., ‘Extraterritoriale Wirkung eines allgemeinen Veräußerungsverbots im Konkurseröffnungsverfahren — Revisibilität ermessensfehlerhafter Ermittlung ausländischen Rechts — Durchgriff — Auf die Insolvenzanfechtung anwendbares Recht’, 13 IPRax (1993) pp. 69–74Google Scholar; Otte, K., ‘Anspruch des Konkursverwalters auf Rückgewähr von Inhaberaktien einer AG mit Sitzim Ausland’, 16 IPRax (1996) pp. 327–332.Google Scholar

6. The German Supreme Court, 21 November 1996, Wertpapier Mitteilungen 1997, 178, Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 1997, 472.

7. After the implementation of the new Insolvenzordnung, the cumulative reference to the law applicable to the avoidance of legal transactions in bankruptcies with an international scope laid down in Art. 102, para. 2 of the Act implementing the Insolvenzordnung, will become effective. In addition, according to Art. 1, para. 19 of the latter Act, the law which governs the legal transaction is furthermore exclusively applicable to an avoidance to situations other than bankruptcies.

8. See District Court of Haarlem, 17 September 1996, NIPR 1996, 438; District Court of The Hague, 29 January 1997, NIPR 1997, 132, Jurisprudentie Onderneming & Recht 1997, 115.