In other words: liquidate the assets, pay the debts, and distribute any surplus to the entitled parties. Liquidation means that a liquidator comes into office (usually the last director) who must 'liquidate' all the assets of the legal entity. The legal entity then comes to be 'in liquidation' (and must also put that after its name on its letterhead). One of the ways in which the existence of a legal entity ends is by passing a resolution to dissolve it. However, it is often unclear to a creditor who sees his debtor simply disappear whether there is a legitimate turbo liquidation or an unlawful 'disappearing act', what his rights are, and above all, how he can obtain information to assess all this. When viewed in this way, the turbo liquidation is a legitimate means with social value. This would relieve the burden on trustees (the liquidation of so-called 'empty estates' through bankruptcy incurs high costs for society) and reduce the number of 'dormant' companies (resulting in a reduction of the administrative burden). The legislator's intention in introducing the turbo liquidation was to be able to wind up empty companies without unnecessary administrative actions. The question is whether this fear is always justified. The main objection to turbo liquidation is the fear that it enables entrepreneurs to 'empty' a company (remove everything of value from it), without external supervision and without considering the interests of creditors, after which the company simply 'disappears' (is dissolved and deleted from the Trade Register). In it, years of prison sentences were demanded for massive fraud with so-called 'plof-BVs': by making companies 'disappear', millions in debts were left unpaid. An example is the large criminal case of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Amsterdam against fourteen suspects (including three civil-law notaries) in 2019.
Turbo liquidation has been in the news a lot in recent years, not least because of potential abuses of this instrument.
0 kommentar(er)
