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.

European Insolvency Regulation

Daycare company Estro was declared bankrupt in July 2014, but the undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ insolvency. All 3600 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. About 2600 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, which company was a so called ‘connected party’ as the shareholder also held a substantial part of the shares of Estro.

The Dutch shrimp factory Heiploeg was declared bankrupt in November 2014. The undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ construction. All 180 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. 120 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, but on different employment conditions.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.