Dutch Act on Court Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan (WHOA)
The Dutch Act on Court Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan (WHOA) entered into force on 1 January 2021. This legislative change significantly amended insolvency law.
Compulsory restructuring plan outside bankruptcy
The WHOA enables a debtor to offer a compulsory restructuring plan to creditors and other stakeholders, such as shareholders, which can help prevent bankruptcy. Previously, a compulsory restructuring plan could only be declared binding in suspension of payments or bankruptcy.
Binding effect on creditors
The plan becomes binding on creditors if the court confirms it. Creditors may also be bound by the plan even if they voted against it. The law requires, among other things, that the plan must be reasonable and fair. Creditors are given the opportunity to vote on the plan and are divided into different classes for that purpose.
Content of the plan
The debtor has considerable freedom in structuring the plan. The proposed plan may change the rights of those involved, including creditors and shareholders. For example, a creditor may have to accept only partial payment of its claim or conversion of part of the debt into share capital.
Statutory WHOA framework
The WHOA framework is quite complex. The contents of the plan must meet various requirements. It must indicate, for example, the value expected to be realised if the plan is adopted, known as the restructuring value, as well as the proceeds expected in a liquidation of the debtor’s assets in bankruptcy, known as the liquidation value.
On this basis, the court can assess, among other things, the no creditor worse off rule. This means that the court may reject confirmation of the plan at the request of a creditor if that creditor would be placed in a worse position under the plan than in a bankruptcy liquidation.
In addition to the debtor, creditors and stakeholders, other persons may also play a role, such as a restructuring expert, observer or other experts appointed by the court.
Legal guidance on WHOA
We are happy to help if you wish to offer a restructuring plan to prevent bankruptcy or if you are confronted with a debtor who wishes to offer such a plan.
Click below to learn more about how we can advise you on the following areas/topics:
SPECIALIZED LAWYERS
These are our lawyers who specialize in this area.
Bouwe Bos
Peter de Graaf
David Harreman
Anouk van Houdt
Jamie Janssen
Laura Kleijne
Jacolien Leuvenink
Gentia Niesert
Ben van Nieuwaal
Richard Ouwerling
Mike Pfeifer
Hans Rijntjes
Rob Steenhoek
Peter Verheijden
Carolina Corijn
Legal assistant
+31 (0)10 209 27 52
corijn@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Anna-Rhodé van den Dool
Ina Erwich
Sebastiaan Knook
Secretary
+31 (0)10 209 27 64
knook@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Irene Nuijen
Administrative Assistant
+31 (0)10 209 27 50
nuijen@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Carola Plomp
Secretary
+31 (0)10 209 27 75
plomp@lvh-advocaten.nl (more…)
Claudia Rondberg
Receptionist
+31 (0)10 209 27 77
rondberg@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Bram van Ruijven
Legal assistant aviation
+31 (0)10 209 27 64
vanruijven@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Maxime Visser
Manager backoffice
+31 (0)10 206 17 84
visser@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Sebastiaan Knook
Legal assistant aviation
+31 (0)10 209 27 52
knook@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Annique Wennekes
More about bankruptcy
The position of the SME entrepreneur as a creditor in a WHOA arrangement
On 1 January 2021, the Homologation Underhand Arrangement Act (WHOA) entered into force. This law introduced a new restructuring instrument. Its purpose is to prevent companies from being declared bankrupt while they are still (partially) viable. The statutory scheme includes a minimum protection for (smaller) SMEs. This is also referred to as the 20% rule. In this article I will explain the position of the SME as a creditor in a WHOA settlement.
Can a cash payment made after the bankruptcy date be reclaimed?
Recently, the Supreme Court issued an interesting judgment involving two important principles of bankruptcy law, namely the principle of fixation and the principle of paritas creditorum. The case concerned a situation in which, after the bankruptcy date, a cash payment was made from the bankrupt's bank account to a creditor. The central question was whether the trustee could recover the payment from the creditor. This article discusses the case, the relevant principles and the Supreme Court's opinion.
Surveillance in the (home) workplace: what is an employer allowed?
Previously we wrote an article about the rules for camera surveillance in the workplace. The need for employer monitoring exceeds - partly in view of the corona pandemic - the mere checking of the workplace with cameras. Employers also have a need to monitor employees' browsing habits, as well as the emails they send. And, of course, they want to prevent employees from spending hours Internet shopping and watching TV at the home workplace during working hours. But isn't monitoring this a violation of the employee's privacy, especially at the home workplace? In this article, we address that question. Is an employer allowed to use monitoring tools and what rules must the employer abide by during a monitoring. To form a clear picture, we will also discuss case law.
