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.
Committees
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.
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.
Approval of bid protections in connection with the sale of significant assets pursuant to § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code has become an established practice in chapter 11 cases.[1] In nonbankruptcy transactions, bidding incentives like break-up fees and expense reimbursements are measured against a business judgment standard.
Unsecured creditors are often out-of-the-money or positioned to receive a pittance of a distribution by the terms initially proposed by chapter 11 debtors and the secured lenders who consent to the proposal. This is particularly true if an unpaid portion of secured debt looms as a deficiency claim, threatening to further dilute general unsecured creditor (GUC) recoveries.
![Photo of Jonathan D’Andrea [1]](https://abi-org-corp.s3.amazonaws.com/committee/Authors/DAndrea_2.png)
One of the primary purposes of chapter 11 is to maximize the value of a debtor’s assets.
ABI’s Asset Sales Committee announced that In re Verity Health System of California Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151-ER (C.D. Cal.), won the committee’s third annual “Asset Sale of the Year” award.
In City of Chicago v. Fulton (Fulton), [1] the Supreme Court settled a split among circuits regarding the correct interpretation of § 362(a)(3), which prohibits “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over of property of the estate.
In July, the Second Circuit issued an opinion favoring the dischargeability of certain private student loans in what appears to be a growing circuit trend. This trend correlates with the call for student loan reform, which has been at the forefront of the news in recent months.
The childhood riposte “none of your beeswax” has some legal analogs; among them is the doctrine of standing. Standing limits the scope of legal rules, including the automatic stay. [1] Many courts agree that acts in violation of the automatic stay are not voidable but void.
