Short Reads

The Dutch scheme – when can it be used, and by whom?

The Dutch scheme – when can it be used, and by whom?

The Dutch scheme – when can it be used, and by whom?

11.03.2020 NL law

As mentioned in our earlier blog, the Dutch legislator has prepared a bill – the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord) – which introduces a framework allowing debtors to restructure their debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (the “Dutch Scheme“).

In our previous blog, we summarised the Dutch Scheme and explained that either (i) the debtor or (ii) any of its creditors, shareholders or employee representatives (the "creditors et al") may take the initiative for the Dutch Scheme.

In this blog, we further discuss when the scheme can be used, and go into greater detail concerning by whom.

When can the scheme be used?

  • A debtor is entitled to propose a restructuring plan to his creditors or shareholders when the debtor is in a situation whereby it can be reasonably expected that he will not be able to continue paying his debts.
  • In summary, this means that the debtor has sufficient liquidity to meet his short-term obligations, but reasonably expects that without a restructuring of the debt, the debtor will not be able to prevent a future insolvency.
  • An example is the situation in which the debtor foresees that he will not be able to repay or refinance a loan that will become due and payable within six months or a year, and foresees that such a failure would result in bankruptcy.
  • Similarly, when the creditors et al take the initiative for a restructuring plan, the debtor has to be in a situation that it can be reasonably expected that he will not be able to continue paying his debts. It may or may not be difficult for the creditors et al to substantiate this. The court can appoint an expert to investigate whether the debtor is in such a situation.
  • The debtor is not entitled to propose a restructuring if a previous attempt to arrange a Dutch Scheme has failed in the past three years. Such previous failure does not limit the ability of creditors et al to request the appointment of a restructuring expert.

Who can take the initiative and what actions are required?

  • First, the debtor can take the initiative. If the debtor takes the initiative, the Dutch scheme will formally start when (i) the debtor files a declaration with the competent court, declaring that he has started preparing a restructuring plan or (ii) the debtor requests the court to appoint a restructuring expert.
  • The filing of the declaration does not immediately result in court involvement. The purpose of the declaration is that once the declaration is filed, the debtor can request certain measures from the court. For example, (i) authorisation to obtain financing (ii) allowing a cooling-off period, or (iii) other measures protecting the interests of the creditors and shareholders.
  • The debtor does not require shareholder consent for a restructuring plan under the Dutch Scheme. This measure aims to prevent that the management board is unable to initiate the restructuring process in the event that the shareholders oppose such a plan.
  • Second, the creditors et al may take the initiative for the Dutch Scheme. They cannot propose a plan themselves; they must file a request with the competent court to appoint a restructuring expert. The court will subsequently hear the requesting party, as well as the debtor.
  • The court will in principle grant the request if the creditors et al, or the court-appointed expert, demonstrate that the debtor is in a situation whereby it can be reasonably expected that he will not be able to continue paying his debts.
  • An exemption applies in case it appears that appointing a restructuring expert would not serve the interests of the joint creditors.
  • An example of this exemption is the situation when the application is submitted by a creditor, who apparently does so in order to frustrate or delay an ongoing restructuring process, aiming to create a better bargaining position for himself, while the joint creditors are disadvantaged by such ‘strategic’ behavior and the associated delay.
  • In case the creditors et al request for the appointment of a restructuring expert while the debtor has already taken the initiative for a Dutch Scheme, the court will balance the costs and delay involved with the appointment of a restructuring expert against the direct or indirect benefit for the joint creditors stemming from the appointment. The court must grant a request for the appointment of a restructuring expert if the request is submitted by the debtor himself, or is supported by the majority of creditors.

In our next blog, we will discuss the high degree of flexibility offered by the Dutch Scheme.

Team

Related news

07.07.2020 NL law
Wetsvoorstel Wet Homologatie onderhands akkoord aangenomen door de Tweede Kamer

Short Reads - Het Wetsvoorstel Wet Homologatie onderhands akkoord (“WHOA”) is op 26 mei 2020 door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen en is momenteel in behandeling bij de Eerste Kamer. De WHOA combineert aspecten van de Engelse Scheme of Arrangement en de Amerikaanse Chapter 11 procedure. Ondernemingen die in zwaar weer verkeren krijgen de mogelijkheid om hun schulden buiten formele insolventieprocedures te herstructureren door een akkoord op te leggen aan (een deel van) de schuldeisers. De verwachting is dat de wet dit najaar in werking zal treden.

Read more

18.06.2020 NL law
Wetsvoorstel opheffing verpandingsverboden: (mogelijke) impact op de financieringspraktijk

Short Reads - Het op 2 juni 2020 bij de Tweede Kamer ingediende wetsvoorstel opheffing verpandingsverboden (het “Wetsvoorstel”) beoogt de bestaande praktijk van het contractueel overeenkomen van verboden of beperkingen van de overdracht of verpanding van geldvorderingen op naam, voor zover die verkregen zijn in de uitoefening van beroep of bedrijf, op te heffen. Na inwerkingtreding van het Wetsvoorstel zullen dergelijke bedingen nietig zijn. In dit bericht een weergave van de (mogelijke) impact op de financieringspraktijk.

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Actualiteiten bescherming Nederlandse ondernemingen

Short Reads - Het afgelopen half jaar zijn er verschillende ontwikkelingen geweest op het gebied van bescherming van Nederlandse ondernemingen. COVID-19 zorgde daarbij voor een stroomversnelling. De verslechterde economische situatie als gevolg van COVID-19 maakt dat ondernemingen sneller bloot kunnen komen te staan aan ongewenste overnames of investeringen. Het Kabinet biedt ondernemingen handvatten ter bescherming tegen ongewenste overnames en investeringen als de nationale veiligheid in het geding komt.

Read more

03.06.2020 NL law
Restructuring & Insolvency in the Netherlands - 2020

Articles - What duties and potential liabilities should the directors/managers have regard to when managing a company in financial difficulties? Is there a specific point at which a company must enter a restructuring or insolvency process? What are the criteria for entry into each restructuring procedure? Or, what impact does each restructuring procedure have on existing contracts?

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
Aansprakelijkheid van de Staat bij vliegtuigcrash in Faro

Articles - In haar uitspraak van 8 januari 2020 oordeelde Rechtbank Den Haag dat de Nederlandse Staat onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van de vliegramp in Faro (Portugal) in 1992, waarbij een Nederlands toestel was betrokken. De onrechtmatigheid is gelegen in onjuiste dan wel onvolledige informatieverstrekking over de oorzaken van deze vliegramp door de toenmalige Raad voor de Luchtvaart, inmiddels opgegaan in de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (‘Raad’). 

Read more

27.05.2020 NL law
Accountants advising in real estate transactions: be aware of penalties in mortgage deeds

Short Reads - The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 3 March 2020 that an accountant did not properly advise her client with respect to a sale of real estate (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:1875). In her research concerning the consequences of the sale, the accountant had failed to properly review the contracts between the seller and the financier of the real estate. The accountant had therefore acted unlawfully.

Read more