No pre-pack if relaunch is postponed

Publication date: 21 November 2017
A surprising judgment – on how a company does not fall under the pre-pack regime and the new organisation does not have to take over the staff.

herplaatsing

Pre-pack = transfer of undertaking

A coffin manufacturer from Enkhuizen was in an economically difficult situation last summer and steering towards a pre-pack regime in which part of the personnel would end up on the streets. On the day the “silent administrator” was appointed who was to prepare the pre-pack, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that a relaunch by means of a pre-pack (also known as “flash bankruptcy”) would be a transfer of undertaking. That means, employees in a pre-pack would be transferred automatically to the new organisation whilst retaining their working conditions, as opposed to what is customary in a relaunch after bankruptcy.

Takeover by Belgian company

Subsequently, the coffin manufacturer filed for bankruptcy and the administrator investigated the possibility of a relaunch. Less than three weeks after the bankruptcy the company announced that it would be taken over by a Belgian company.

Relaunch or pre-pack?

The dismissed employees commenced legal proceedings and claimed that this would be a pre-pack regime. They suspected that the takeover had been decided before bankruptcy had been filed for, and that therefore the bankruptcy was not focused on the liquidation of the company as is required by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the administrator, the same person as the previously appointed “silent administrator”, would have ignored other companies that guaranteed to take over the personnel. In addition, the ex-owner had become operational manager and the company name remained the same.

However, the Court decided that this was an ordinary relaunch after bankruptcy and not a pre-pack regime. It did not find any evidence that the takeover of the company had been arranged down to the last detail before the bankruptcy was pronounced. Besides, the sale of the assets of the company had taken place under supervision of the bankruptcy judge. Also, according to the Court, did see no indication of an abuse of bankruptcy with the aim to cheaply get rid of the personnel. The company had actually been liquidated, which is the focus of a bankruptcy.

Conclusion

An employee who invokes transfer of undertaking due to a pre-pack will have to prove the existence of a pre-pack regime – and that is not an easy undertaking. Therefore, it remains possible for employers to prepare a partial relaunch before the bankruptcy is pronounced.

More information

Would you like to learn more about transfer of undertaking or relaunch after bankruptcy? Please contact us:

    Share on social media

    • Employment law and dismissal

    Transfer of undertaking: Also in pre-packs!

    26 June 2017

    Employees’ protection against dismissal also in pre-packs! What does this mean in practice?

    read on
    • Employment law and dismissal

    Transfer of undertaking: Do the rules also apply in case of bankruptcy?

    21 June 2016

    Planning a merger, acquisition or division of (part of) a business in the Netherlands or any other EU country? Be aware of the EU law which sets out the strong position of employees in case of a transfer of undertaking (Directive 2001/23/EC). This time: Do the rules regarding transfer of undertaking also apply in case of bankruptcy?

    read on
    • Corporate law

    Transfer of undertaking: Criteria

    28 October 2015

    Planning a merger, acquisition or division of (part of) a business in the Netherlands or any other EU country? Be aware of the EU law which sets out the strong position of employees in case of a transfer of undertaking (Directive 2001/23/EC). Russell Advocaten will inform you on this legislation and the consequences thereof by a series of newsletters. This time: Criteria for a transfer of undertaking.

    read on
    • IT and ICT
    • Employment law and dismissal

    Uber drivers are employees, not self-employed workers

    14 September 2021

    According to the Amsterdam District Court, Uber drivers are employees. Therefore, they are covered by the collective agreement of the taxi industry with all associated rights and obligations. How did the District Court reach this judgement? And what does it mean for other forms of platform work?

    read on
    • Retail
    • Employment law and dismissal

    Questions and challenges during COVID-19: Dutch employment law, tenancy law and contract law

    13 September 2021

    In this article, we will discuss several questions and challenges in the field of Dutch employment law, tenancy law and contract law during COVID-19.

    read on
    • Corporate law

    Is a management agreement an employment contract or a contract for services?

    26 August 2021

    Do the new rules of the Supreme Court for the assessment of employment contracts also have consequence for management agreements? Case law has not decided yet. This can be seen from the judgments of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal and the District Court of Midden-Nederland about the management agreement of the CFO of Volksbank.

    read on
    • Employment law and dismissal

    Dismissal of sick statutory director

    12 August 2021

    A sick employee may not be dismissed. However, an employee who knows of imminent dismissal, cannot avoid this by reporting sick. But when does the employee know that this is the case? This question was central to the court case concerning the dismissal of a CFO of Volksbank.

    read on
    • Employment law and dismissal

    Personnel: Rules on employee appearance in company regulations

    10 August 2021

    Employers can determine rules on clothing and appearance in company regulations. What do employers have to keep in mind when setting such rules?

    read on