Pre-pack insolvency

Make a no-obligation appointment

A (large) company that concludes that its insolvency is inevitable may request the court to appoint a silent administrator (beoogd curator). That silent administrator examines whether a going-concern sale and business restart after insolvency may be feasible. In this way, a restructuring can be prepared discreetly, without the adverse effects typically associated with a public insolvency filing.

How does a pre-pack insolvency work?

In an ordinary insolvency proceeding, substantial destruction of value often occurs immediately upon the declaration of bankruptcy, for example as a result of negative publicity and the consequent rapid erosion of goodwill. If there is a realistic possibility of a going-concern restart, swift action is usually required. Suppliers and customers will, after a period of continued uncertainty, quickly seek alternatives elsewhere. The going-concern value therefore diminishes by the day. If the intended insolvency practitioner has already had the opportunity, in his or her capacity as silent administrator, to explore the various options for a restart before the bankruptcy order is made, the eventual sale or restart may yield a significantly better return. This may result not only in a higher purchase price, but also in the preservation of more employment. A pre-pack can therefore help avoid unnecessary destruction of value.

During the pre-pack phase, the intended insolvency practitioner is clearly not acting as adviser to the debtor. As in an insolvency, he or she must be guided by the interests of the joint creditors. However, the intended insolvency practitioner may provide the debtor with clarity as to whether the existing plans for a sale or restart of the business after the declaration of bankruptcy are feasible. This provides much-needed certainty.

Under current Dutch law, the pre-pack remains without a general statutory basis. As a result, the pre-pack has not been uniformly available in practice, and several Dutch courts no longer cooperate with pre-pack procedures. Its legal framework has also been shaped by case law, including the position of employees in pre-pack-related transfers of undertaking. In addition, legislative efforts have been made to regulate the pre-pack more formally.

But as matters currently stand, the pre-pack is still encountered in practice, but only to a limited extent and not as a generally available, statutorily codified tool. Its use depends on the willingness of the competent court to cooperate and is therefore not uniform across the Netherlands.

More information on insolvency and restructuring >

Lawyers

Previous slide
Next slide

Christiaan Mensink

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer

Lucie Burggraaff

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer

Mechteld van Veen-Oudenaarden

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer

Carlijn Streelder

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer

Daniël Huijboom

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer
Laurens Prickartz

Laurens Prickartz

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer
Pien Salomons

Pien Salomons

Company law, Family law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer

Shane Borsboom

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer

Wladimir Schmidt

Company law, Insolvency law Read more about this lawyer
All lawyers

Looking for a insolvency lawyer in The Hague?

GMW lawyers are happy to help you with all your insolvency and restructuring matters.

Do you have a question? Please feel free to contact us.

"*" indicates required fields

newsletter?

You might also like

13 August 2026

New Act on Transfer of Undertakings in Bankruptcy (WOVOF): consequences for employees and restart entrepreneurs

Some time ago, a blog was published on our website about the protection of employees in a restart following bankruptcy. It was relevant then and remains a topical issue now, as the Act on the Transfer of Undertakings in Bankruptcy (Wet Overgang van Onderneming in Faillissement, WOVOF) is approaching.

Read more

Read more about

6 August 2026

Set-off and bankruptcy: what is and isn’t allowed?

Set-off is a legal mechanism whereby two parties who owe each other obligations may offset their mutual claims and debts. In an ordinary commercial relationship this is, in principle, unproblematic. However, once bankruptcy proceedings are involved, different rules apply.

Read more

Read more about

2 July 2026

Duty to provide information in a WHOA plan

The Zeeland-West Brabant District Court delivered a ruling on the debtor’s duty to provide information in a WHOA procedure.

Read more

Read more about

8 October 2025

Insolvency, Finance & Collateral: case law alerts

In this article, we explain the importance of properly documenting claims secured by pledges and mortgages.

Read more

Read more about

22 September 2025

Tax aspects of WHOA arrangements

The Dutch Act on Court Approval of Private Restructuring Plans (WHOA) offers companies in financial distress the opportunity to reach an agreement with creditors outside of formal insolvency.

Read more

Read more about

3 September 2025

What to do as a creditor in a bankruptcy?

What you can do as a creditor in the event of a bankruptcy: from your rights and options to the role of the trustee and supervisory judge, and the ways in which a bankruptcy can be concluded.

Read more

Read more about

15 July 2025

Termination of financing by the bank: once again it comes down to reasonableness and fairness

The District Court of Limburg recently issued a judgment on the immediate termination of a credit agreement.

Read more

Read more about

25 June 2025

The most difficult period for directors

It’s a situation no director likes to think about: the realisation that their company may not survive. Although this can be an emotionally challenging time, as a director you must also consider your new obligations.

Read more

Read more about

2 June 2025

Can you start legal proceedings for €0,01?

On 26 November 2024, the Rotterdam District Court ruled on a case involving an amount of €0,01. Despite the minimal value, the court decided that there was insufficient interest to proceed. This judgment highlights the principle that a claimant must have sufficient interest to initiate legal proceedings.

Read more

Read more about