The uneasy case for rehabilitating small firms under the 1997-reorganization law in Belgium: evidence from reorganization plans
Using a sample of small Belgian firms that reorganized under the 1997 Law on Judicial Composition, I empirically review the law’s effectiveness to rehabilitate distressed debtors. The econometric findings show that firms with less pre-bankruptcy operational losses and a better cash position are more likely to successfully execute their reorganization plan and that certain debt restructuring measures can contribute to firm rescue. Despite these positive findings, many firms still failed to reorganise under the 1997-reorganization law, which resulted in constant criticism on its effectiveness leading up to its recent replacement in 2009. My data also shows that within the former reorganization procedure the Belgian debtor was faced with high debt instalment payments compared to international practice and that successful plan execution relied too much on the uncertain realization of the operational cash flow projections. In discussing the legal framework of the new Law on Corporate Continuity enacted in 2009—replacing the 1997-law—I argue that this new law is a more effective legislation to save distressed businesses.
KeywordsCourt-supervised reorganization Bankruptcy Insolvency regulation Reorganization plan
JEL ClassificationK20 K22 G33
This research is a reworked and updated version of the first chapter of my doctoral dissertation on creditor behaviour in distressed companies. This first chapter was originally entitled “the reorganization practice of small firms under Belgian court-supervised reorganization”. I appreciate helpful comments and suggestions from Peter Coussement, Abe de Jong, Sophie Manigart, Koen Schoors, Armin Schwienbacher, Michel Tison and Cynthia Van Hulle. I also wish to thank Anne Meeussen for the language revisions. The financial support of the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders is gratefully acknowledged.
- Baird, D. G., Bris, A., & Zhu, N. (2007). The dynamics of large and small chapter 11 cases: An empirical study. Yale ICF Working Paper No. 05-29.Google Scholar
- Fisher, T. C. G., & Martel, J. (1995). The creditor’s financial reorganization decision: New evidence form Canadian data. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11(1), 112–126.Google Scholar
- Jensen-Conklin, S. (1992). Do confirmed Chapter 11 plans consummate? The results of a study and analysis of the law. Commercial Law Journal, 97(3), 297–331.Google Scholar
- Kahl, M. (2001). Financial distress as a selection mechanism: Evidence from the United States. Anderson School, Finance Working Paper No. 16-01. Google Scholar
- Morgan, B. K. (2000). Should the sovereign be paid first? A comparative analysis of the priority for tax claims in bankruptcy. The American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 74, 461–508.Google Scholar
- Warren, E., & Westbrook, J. L. (1999). Financial characteristics of businesses in bankruptcy. The American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 73, 499–589.Google Scholar
- Warren, E., & Westbrook, J. L. (2007). Chapter 11: Conventional wisdom and reality. University of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 125. Google Scholar
- White, M. J. (1994). Corporate bankruptcy as a filtering device: Chapter 11 reorganizations and out-of-court debt restructurings. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 10(2), 268–295.Google Scholar