On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law. This Proposal is intended to harmonise the insolvency laws of EU member states in order to make insolvency proceedings more predictable and efficient. The Proposal also includes a number of principles the pre-pack proceedings in each member state must meet.

The Proposal defines pre-pack proceedings as:

Einde aan overdrachts- en verpandingsverboden om het kredietpotentieel van het bedrijfsleven te vergroten

Inleiding en huidig recht

On 26 May 2020, the Act on the confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was adopted by the Dutch parliamentary House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer). The Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) will now have the final vote. Parliamentary consultations in the Dutch Senate will take place on 9 June 2020.

Op 17 maart jl. nam de regering uitzonderlijke maatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de corona uitbraak het hoofd te bieden. Met noodmaatregelen probeert de regering ondernemingen overeind te houden. Het blijft onzeker of die maatregelen voldoende financiële ruimte geven om de salarissen en schuldeisers (op termijn) te betalen. We bespreken daarom in deze bijdrage een uiterste redmiddel: de wettelijke procedure van surseance van betaling.

Surseance van betaling (uitstel van betaling)

The Act on the confirmation of private plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was submitted to the Dutch parliament last year and, once adopted, introduces a framework under which tailor-made (financial) restructuring plans can be implemented outside formal insolvency proceedings.

The WHOA combines elements of the English Scheme of Arrangements, US Chapter 11 and the EU Restructuring Directive (EU 2019/1023).

The following is an overview of the WHOA's most important features.

The procedure

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case

With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver

The case