Background

Under Dutch law, the directors of a (private) company can be held personally liable by the trustee for the bankruptcy deficit. Liability can arise when the directors have manifestly performed their management duties improperly and if it is reasonable to assume that bankruptcy was declared as a result. Section 2:248(4) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) contains a list of grounds for reducing the amount of the directors’ liability.

Decision

Since Article 3: 305a of the Dutch Civil Code entered into force on 1 July 1994, a legal person (usually a foundation) can institute legal proceedings that serve to protect interests outlined in its articles of association (for example, recovering damage caused to the members of the foundation concerned). The mass claims foundation was born.

On 1 January 2021, new Dutch restructuring law Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (or WHOA) came into effect. Here, we run through what WHOA is and cover the first decisions handed down under the new law.

What is WHOA?

The number of bankruptcies in the Netherlands is rising.

Therefore, in mid-April, a number of professors, insolvency practitioners, employers and labour unions petitioned to accelerate the introduction of WHOA (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord – the Act on Dutch Court Confirmation of Extrajudicial Restructuring Plans to Avert Bankruptcy), the introduction of which was already planned.

Unfortunately your business can be confronted with bankruptcy of one of your (Dutch) business partners. In most cases this will damage your business. We can help you to avoid or limit damages. In this edition of TW FOUR we will set out FOUR ways to protect your business from the bankruptcy of one of your (Dutch) business partners.

Key points

• Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

• Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.

The facts

Key point

• In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.

The facts

This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:

Key Points

• Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
• The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors

The Facts

This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Key points

• The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
• A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
• In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.

The facts

Key points

• A practical approach was adopted by the court in respect of deadlines for submitting administration expense claims that were otherwise holding up the making of distributions to unsecured creditors.
• In the absence of a suitable statutory mechanism, the court allowed for a cut-off date by which expense claims must be submitted.

The administrators of 18 of the Nortel companies applied to court for directions on how to deal with potential claims for administration expenses.