| |
| |
| vol 16, num 2 | October 2021 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| International Co-Chairs Corner - October 2021 |
| As co-chairs, we thank all of the members of ABI’s International Committee for their continued support and involvement with the committee during this pandemic-dominated year. We also extend a warm welcome to our new members and encourage you to reach out to us or International Committee Membership Chair Kenneth Kraft (Dentons Canada; Toronto) to discuss ways to get more involved with the International Committee. In addition, we are grateful to the ABI staff and Board of Directors for their continued support, for their ability to adapt to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for continuing to produce exceptional content across the
ABI platform.
We are excited to tell you about some of exciting events coming your way during the fall as we continue to transition from fully virtual conferences back to live conferences. First, for the second year in a row, we will be teaming up with the American College of Bankruptcy, International Insolvency Institute (III), TMA Europe, INSOL and IWIRC, and combining ABI’s Cross-Border Insolvency Program, which is traditionally held in New York City in early November, with the International Insolvency & Restructuring Symposium, traditionally held in mid-November in Europe. The resulting International Insolvency & Restructuring Symposium and Cross-Border Insolvency Program will be a three-day virtual event presented on ABI’s innovative online platform Nov. 17-19, 2021. The program will include the annual “America Now” update with U.S. bankruptcy
judges, a “Far East” update, and variety of interesting panels touching on developments and trends in insolvency and restructuring across the globe.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| International Forum Selection, Post-COVID: Which Way Now? |
| In recent times, global businesses based all over the world have often turned to chapter 11 or the English scheme of arrangement to implement their debt restructurings, often due to the failure of local restructuring and insolvency laws to provide an adequate or optimal restructuring solution. This has led to the development of “restructuring hubs” or “nodal” jurisdictions, and forum-selection has become a necessary part of devising a restructuring strategy in many cross-border situations in order to deliver the best outcome.
As we now look to the post-pandemic future and the restructuring activity that is anticipated as state aid packages around the world start to be wound down, this article considers where the action will be in future cross-border restructuring situations.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| The Future of Insolvency Law in a Post-Pandemic World |
| The COVID-19 crisis has encouraged many countries to amend their bankruptcy laws. In many cases, these amendments took place temporarily — especially during the hibernation phase of the pandemic. In other countries, however, the pandemic has led to permanent changes in their insolvency legislations. More importantly, the COVID-19 crisis has encouraged many countries around the world to reassess the desirability of their insolvency and restructuring frameworks. This assessment has resulted in various trends and discussions that are expected to reshape the future of insolvency law in a post-pandemic world.
In terms of trends, the pandemic has accelerated two types of reforms: the adoption of special insolvency frameworks for micro-, small and medium-size enterprises (MSMEs), and the implementation of hybrid (or pre-insolvency) restructuring proceedings — especially in countries with inefficient insolvency frameworks.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
| An Introduction to the Dutch Scheme and an Overview of the First Rulings Since Its Enactment |
 |
| |
Sits Schreurs
RESOR N.V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| |
 |
| |
Prof. Michael Veder
RESOR N.V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| |
 |
| |
Dr. Sebastiaan van den Berg
RESOR N.V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| |
| On Jan. 1, 2021, the Dutch Act on the Confirmation of Private Plans (hereafter referred to by its Dutch acronym, “WHOA,” or the “Dutch Scheme”) entered into force. It represents a robust and flexible restructuring framework. This brief article provides a summary of the Dutch Scheme and an update about the first published cases involving the scheme.
Dutch Scheme Inspired by U.S. Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan
The Dutch Scheme provides an instrument to facilitate court confirmation of a private plan to restructure a business’s capital structure, so that creditors and/or shareholders who did not accept the plan can nevertheless be bound by it (with the exemption of rights of employees).
A debtor is eligible for this procedure if it can reasonably be assumed that he will not be able to proceed paying his debts as they fall due. The Dutch Scheme procedure can be initiated by both the debtor and a court-appointed restructuring expert. The capital providers whose rights will be amended are the only ones with voting rights. For purposes of voting, the respective different types of creditors and shareholders are divided into classes based on their rank and interests. Based on this voting procedure, a two-thirds majority of a class can impose its will on the minority.
Under the Dutch Scheme, the debtor or restructuring expert can opt to offer the plan in a private or public procedure. If the debtor starts the preparation of a plan, he deposits a notification thereof with the court registry. From this moment onward, the debtor can call in a number of flanking measures. No preceding creditors’ meeting or court entry test is required. After preparing the plan, the debtor presents it to its respective capital providers for a vote. Voting on the plan commences eight days afterward at the earliest. Within seven days after voting, the debtor draws up a report and submits this at the court registry for inspection.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
