Companies in financial distress
Companies in financial distress
If a company is in financial distress it is difficult for all parties involved. The entrepreneur has to decide (over and over again) whether or not to continue the business and which creditors may or may not be paid. A restructuring or relaunch may be considered. Perhaps a moratorium can lead to a solution or a private settlement can be offered with the help of the WHOA. Or you want to continue but you are faced with a insolvency petition by a creditor. Can you defend yourself against such a petition?
On the other side creditors are looking for ways to minimize their losses. Can they suspend deliveries? Are they allowed to reclaim delivered items?
There may also be employees who are facing wage arrears. What is their position?
Experienced insolvency lawyers
The court regularly appoints lawyers from our firm as trustees in corporate insolvencies and as administrators in moratoriums. The experience that our lawyers gain in this process is used in advising and guiding our clients. This may be the company that is in dire financial straits, but it may just as well be one of the other parties involved, such as a supplier, a finance company or an employee. A different approach may be necessary for each party involved. After all, the interests of a creditor are essentially different from the interests of, say, an employee or a director. In all cases, this is tailor-made work. A private limited company with dozens of employees, sometimes with several branches, requires a different approach than a general partnership with natural persons as partners.
If you have any questions after reading an article or if you have any other questions in the area of insolvency law, please do not hesitate to contact us. We will be happy to assist you.
More about companies in financial distress
Click further if you would like to learn more about how we can advise you on the following areas/topics:
SPECIALIZED LAWYERS
These are our lawyers who are specialized in this area.
David Harreman
Sebastiaan Knook
Secretary
+31 (0)10 209 27 64
knook@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Maxime Visser
Manager backoffice
+31 (0)10 206 17 84
visser@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Peter Verheijden
Mike Pfeifer
Rob Steenhoek
Richard Ouwerling
Sebastiaan Knook
Legal assistant aviation
+31 (0)10 209 27 52
knook@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Ben van Nieuwaal
Bouwe Bos
Peter de Graaf
Carola Plomp
Secretary
+31 (0)10 209 27 75
plomp@lvh-advocaten.nl (more…)
Gentia Niesert
Hans Rijntjes
Anouk van Houdt
Laura Kleijne
Bram van Ruijven
Legal assistant aviation
+31 (0)10 209 27 64
vanruijven@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Irene Nuijen
Administrative Assistant
+31 (0)10 209 27 50
nuijen@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Claudia Rondberg
Receptionist
+31 (0)10 209 27 77
rondberg@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Annique Wennekes
Carolina Corijn
Legal assistant
+31 (0)10 209 27 52
corijn@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Jacolien Leuvenink
Jamie Janssen
Anna-Rhodé van den Dool
Ina Erwich
More about companies in financial distress
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.
