On 25 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in a ground-breaking judgment in Royal IHC that a WHOA plan may change creditors’ and shareholders’ rights but cannot impose more onerous obligations. More specifically, the lenders cannot be compelled to provide new financing or to accept new terms and still provide new funds under previously committed credit facilities (i.e., undrawn commitments).

Since the Dutch Act on Court Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan (“WHOA” or “Dutch Scheme”) entered into force on 1 January 2021, Dutch Courts have rendered over 200 judgments.

On 9 March 2023, (one of) the largest Dutch Schemes so far was successfully completed: the restructuring of Royal IHC and its subsidiaries (as announced in IHC’s press release). In this case, the Rotterdam Court made several important decisions enhancing the effectiveness and legal certainty surrounding the WHOA, including regarding:

Following the entering into force of the Dutch Scheme on 1 January this year, allowing for court confirmation of private restructuring plans, the Dutch legal toolbox for national and international restructurings has become even more diverse. This development forms part of a broader trend in the Dutch legal framework to facilitate effective restructurings of businesses, in which context one of the key techniques is the enforcement of share security, including through credit bidding.

Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.