危机、债权人和压迫:根据指令(EU) 2019/1023评估《世界贸易组织》对少数债权人的保护

IF 0.6 Q2 Social Sciences
Hidde Volberda
{"title":"危机、债权人和压迫:根据指令(EU) 2019/1023评估《世界贸易组织》对少数债权人的保护","authors":"Hidde Volberda","doi":"10.36633/ulr.638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Covid-19 has severe economic consequences, leading to an increasing amount of businesses facing overwhelming debts. Since the financial crisis of 2008 the European Union has taken on a more rescue-oriented approach towards bankruptcy, resulting in Directive (EU) 2019/1023. This Directive creates a framework for pre-insolvency restructuring, thereby avoiding unnecessary bankruptcies. Accordingly, pre-insolvency restructuring is a valuable instrument in mitigating the negative economic effects of Covid-19. The Netherlands has recently adopted the Act on the Confirmation of Private Plans (WHOA), National Legislation on pre-insolvency restructuring. In order to balance the rights of secured and unsecured creditors the 20%-rule was adopted. This rule guarantees small-scale Small-to-Midsized (SME)-creditors the right to satisfaction of 20% of their claims in restructuring proceedings. In this paper, I evaluate whether the 20%-rule is in accordance with the Directive. I argue that the 20%-rule is in line with the Directive, but that the overly restrictive system of judicial review under the WHOA hampers its application in practice. Therefore, the Dutch legislator should allow for more room for judicial interpretation on the suitability of the application of the 20%-rule. This more nuanced approach better aligns the 20%-rule with the European Restructuring Directive. © 2021","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crises, Creditors and Cramdowns: An evaluation of the protection of minority creditors under the WHOA in light of Directive (EU) 2019/1023\",\"authors\":\"Hidde Volberda\",\"doi\":\"10.36633/ulr.638\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Covid-19 has severe economic consequences, leading to an increasing amount of businesses facing overwhelming debts. Since the financial crisis of 2008 the European Union has taken on a more rescue-oriented approach towards bankruptcy, resulting in Directive (EU) 2019/1023. This Directive creates a framework for pre-insolvency restructuring, thereby avoiding unnecessary bankruptcies. Accordingly, pre-insolvency restructuring is a valuable instrument in mitigating the negative economic effects of Covid-19. The Netherlands has recently adopted the Act on the Confirmation of Private Plans (WHOA), National Legislation on pre-insolvency restructuring. In order to balance the rights of secured and unsecured creditors the 20%-rule was adopted. This rule guarantees small-scale Small-to-Midsized (SME)-creditors the right to satisfaction of 20% of their claims in restructuring proceedings. In this paper, I evaluate whether the 20%-rule is in accordance with the Directive. I argue that the 20%-rule is in line with the Directive, but that the overly restrictive system of judicial review under the WHOA hampers its application in practice. Therefore, the Dutch legislator should allow for more room for judicial interpretation on the suitability of the application of the 20%-rule. This more nuanced approach better aligns the 20%-rule with the European Restructuring Directive. © 2021\",\"PeriodicalId\":44535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utrecht Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utrecht Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.638\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

新冠肺炎带来了严重的经济后果,导致越来越多的企业面临巨额债务。自2008年金融危机以来,欧盟对破产采取了更以救助为导向的做法,从而产生了指令(EU) 2019/1023。该指令为破产前重组建立了框架,从而避免了不必要的破产。因此,破产前重组是减轻新冠肺炎负面经济影响的宝贵工具。荷兰最近通过了《私人计划确认法》,即关于破产前重组的国家立法。为了平衡有担保债权人和无担保债权人的权利,采用了20%规则。这条规则保证了中小规模债权人在重组程序中20%的债权得到满足的权利。在本文中,我评估了20%规则是否符合指令。我认为,20%的规则是符合指令的,但在《世界卫生组织条例》下过于严格的司法审查制度阻碍了它在实践中的应用。因此,荷兰立法者应允许在适用20%规则的适宜性问题上有更多的司法解释余地。这种更微妙的方法使20%规则与欧洲重组指令(European Restructuring Directive)更好地保持一致。©2021
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Crises, Creditors and Cramdowns: An evaluation of the protection of minority creditors under the WHOA in light of Directive (EU) 2019/1023
Covid-19 has severe economic consequences, leading to an increasing amount of businesses facing overwhelming debts. Since the financial crisis of 2008 the European Union has taken on a more rescue-oriented approach towards bankruptcy, resulting in Directive (EU) 2019/1023. This Directive creates a framework for pre-insolvency restructuring, thereby avoiding unnecessary bankruptcies. Accordingly, pre-insolvency restructuring is a valuable instrument in mitigating the negative economic effects of Covid-19. The Netherlands has recently adopted the Act on the Confirmation of Private Plans (WHOA), National Legislation on pre-insolvency restructuring. In order to balance the rights of secured and unsecured creditors the 20%-rule was adopted. This rule guarantees small-scale Small-to-Midsized (SME)-creditors the right to satisfaction of 20% of their claims in restructuring proceedings. In this paper, I evaluate whether the 20%-rule is in accordance with the Directive. I argue that the 20%-rule is in line with the Directive, but that the overly restrictive system of judicial review under the WHOA hampers its application in practice. Therefore, the Dutch legislator should allow for more room for judicial interpretation on the suitability of the application of the 20%-rule. This more nuanced approach better aligns the 20%-rule with the European Restructuring Directive. © 2021
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信