Government as savior of an entrepreneur in trouble?

Miscellaneous UxBridge August 8, 2016 3 0
It abounds today's commercial agencies only too happy to cash in on companies that are in a crisis situation. Creditors manifest itself, the business in question feels loser and by third parties are sometimes seen as someone who its suppliers has done a trick. Several aid agencies called ?? ?? jump in handy here. The result is that today many entrepreneurs in financial crisis feel compelled to bevoegen themselves to such lifesavers ?? ??. In practice it often comes down to is that ?? s office does not do more than bring some order to the administration. A fee of course. In short, the entrepreneur gets in trouble there is an extra cost in. It can be different. It can even be free. How about ask the government itself?
Our government is indeed legally obliged to such operators to offer a helping hand. Only run municipalities are generally not so with sales as the aforementioned commercial assistance agencies. Why do not you'll probably wonder. A very valid question, but more about that later. Let's first look at what the US Government legally zoal has to offer.


The WSNP is entered into force on December 1, 1998 and aims to provide a regulation to prevent a natural person who can be chased into a problematic debt situation was right to the end of time with his debts. The existence of the regime's willingness creditors need to reach a settlement with the debtor be encouraged as amicable. The WSNP should act as a stick ?? ??. This legislation is available from art. 284 Bankruptcy Act.
Entrepreneurs unincorporated, such as sole proprietors and partners of general partnerships, which are considered by law as individuals can submit a request to apply the statutory debt. It was decided to allow entrepreneurs to statutory given the legal and practical is not always possible to make a strict distinction between purely private debt and pure business debts of an individual.
Entrepreneurs therefore constitute a special group within the WSNP because their problem is usually more complicated than non-entrepreneurs. In WSNP has been a business owner as the debtor in the five years prior to the application of the WSNP has had a business or profession. In about a quarter of the WSNP affairs has been a business owner or former entrepreneur. Often the court will appoint a lawyer as administrator. Most entrepreneurs who come into the WSNP, have completed no amicable process. In most cases, there was a former bankruptcy or a bankruptcy filing. Some have gone through the regular amicable. Often these are former entrepreneurs with the company for some time behind us and that resemble a common thing in terms of complexity.


The Decree Assistance Facility Self-employed, according to Article 7 of the Implementation Work and Welfare Act enacted for rules ?? regarding the provision of assistance to cover the capital needs under the Work and Welfare Act to self-employed and to persons general assistance receive and intend to start a business or self-employed ??.
In normal Dutch comes down to is that, applying the BBZ, it is possible vooreen community to provide assistance for a more or less started company and for subsistence. Other than the above quote suggests, defines the scheme-specific aspects that have little to do with the monthly provision of social assistance. Examples include the necessary assessment of the balance sheet and the profit and loss account of the company, and immediately thereafter to assess whether it should be granted an allowance for living expenses, and if so, whether the payment as a loan or as ?? not? ? should be provided. The latter means that the loan granted by too little income do not have to be paid back by the self-employed.
A decisive criterion for whether or not to grant assistance is the viability of the company. This revolves around the question whether the person concerned can be expected to earn an adequate income. The income must be sufficient for the continuation of the company and the provision in existence.

BBZ is a present facility?

Condition to be admitted to the WSNP is that the debtor engages all possible ways to promote the amicable process. The BBZ is a way to make it work amicable process. Obtaining a loan from the municipality, the entrepreneur are in financial distress creditors to make an offer and is therefore a present facility. As a citizen, you are also required to use such a device present.
For example, someone with a recent employment who applies for social assistance from the municipality will be redirected to the UWV because he can exercise his right to unemployment benefit. This also applies to an entrepreneur in financial need who comes to the GKB for reorganization measures. Such a person must legally use the BBZ. But here are some conditions attached. The municipality begins with an external expert commissioned to investigate the viability of the company. The government reimburses the research costs. If the company proves viable, a business owner can through a loan or a temporary benefit to be given the chance in order and to improve the financial situation of the company. There is no perspective and fails to come to an amicable procedure with creditors, then the advice is given to terminate the company and is the WSNP screen. The difference is that creditors should cooperate. In short, the amicable process with financial support under the BBZ will and is a present facility.

Unfamiliarity BBZ

However, there is no good information for business owners with financial problems. It lacks a central point where a business in financial difficulties herself up, early stage can orient. Because such a point is missing, entrepreneurs are often unaware of schemes where they can call up and they end up unnecessarily in the statutory debt. For example, various ex-entrepreneurs in the WSNP not know the Decree assistance independents.
The policy is not clearly defined in many municipalities. This is often because municipalities do not know how they should deal with entrepreneurs. Here, too, the knowledge and size of the community plays a role. At the small towns they have no policy because they hardly know the problem. In some municipalities, there is no policy because the expertise is not there and therefore nothing is settled. The size of the community has greatly affected the way the debt is performed. In a small town the problem is much less than in the great congregation. Because the employees of the municipality several times a year are faced with an entrepreneur in financial trouble, they are often little expertise in the implementation of the debt or the BBZ scheme. Also, it is more efficient and cheaper for smaller municipalities to outsource the debt and the implementation of the BBZ scheme to larger neighboring communities. Entrepreneurs are often mercilessly WSNP "gedouwd". At first glance this may seem like the most inexpensive and easy solution. But is this really the case if we were just a simple calculation to let go?

Amicable settlement proves beneficial

The calculation below is based on the situation that someone in the WSNP applying for social assistance. This is a very real situation since the incentive to work is generally completely gone. This is because someone in a debt settlement, three years all possible income above 90% of the statutory minimum force must submit for distribution to creditors. Social assistance for singles between 21 and 65 years is equal to 50 percent of the net minimum wage. That is ?? 623.14 per month. There still is a supplement to, aware of this often differs per municipality, let's take for example the amount used by Social Affairs and Employment, ?? 252.06. A debt restructuring program lasts 36 months. This equates to:
36 x = ?? 31507.20
By comparison, according to Art. BBZ 18 can apply an additional payment of up to 36 months. This is so largely the same thing, except that the company can continue in the case and that an additional benefit for a municipality generally lower than the full benefit. Instead of an additional distribution may be based on art. 20, paragraph 1 BBZ an interest-bearing loan or guarantee up ?? 173 677 are provided. This seems at first sight expensive than ?? 31507.20 on social assistance, which is probably the reason why a municipality usually choose the latter. Yet here again the benefits of continuing the company overlooked. It enables one to unfold, weather brings employment opportunities and creates so all in all an economic growth at local or national level. Using the BBZ-settlement company can therefore often be continued and entrepreneurs will be able to offer a higher settlement to creditors, reducing the chances of an amicable settlement increases. As a rule, the repayment to creditors in the legislation is lower than for an amicable settlement. They have therefore benefit from there to agree to an amicable settlement. But for the entrepreneur this way attractive.
Besides the fact that there are more likely to retain the company, restricts the amicable settlement less the entrepreneur in his / her freedom than the legislation. Disadvantages of WSNP example, the current postal blockade and the complete dependence of the administrator. Which determines everything. The court, formally supervises the activities of the administrator, it should take a neutral impartial position. In practice, however, often inequality. It seems that what the administrator says is taken seriously beforehand, and conflicting opinions of trustee and the debtor then it seems that the court input from the administrator weigh heavily late than that of the client. This may result in being put out of the debt until the end of time and can be chased by creditors. After the failure of legal process comes amicable fact is no longer an issue and it totally alone.
The advantages of amicable process, or the BBZ-regulation by businesses in financial distress are thus:
  • It enables one to unfold
  • The company can be continued, which in turn results in more jobs and
  • economic growth
  • The repayment to creditors is generally higher in the amicable process
  • The amicable process means more freedom for the debtor


Towns stabbing their heads in the sand when it comes to the legal possibilities they have with regard to financial support to entrepreneurs in heavy weather. Employees of a Social Service or the UWV are generally still very employee oriented. There is a high degree of familiarity with the world of entrepreneurs and people think in stereotypes. The consultants have a certain image of entrepreneurship - all can borrow a lot of money, working 80 hours a week, etc. - and that image can not apply it directly to the recipient, for example, social security benefits.
Of information from municipalities is also generally nil. A quote from the report ?? Entrepreneurial benefit from ?? which was commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment has been drawn:
?? It shows that the possibility of reintegration through an entrepreneurial path in many cases not addressed by the performers. In all organizations provide most performers on the possibility of an entrepreneurial route ?? occasionally ?? to spend there. ??
As a result, citizens' totally unaware of their options when it comes to entrepreneurship. The result is that the largest category of people asking for help is made up of established entrepreneurs. The Ministry of Social Affairs has however insisted on mentioning the possibility of starting during intake interviews with the social services, but municipalities should voluntarily implement this policy. Since the introduction of the Work and Welfare Act is that personal responsibility and freedom of choice are increased.
In short, support from the majority of municipalities is marginal and expires after the start not optimal. It is seldom available, while it may then be important to have a finger on the pulse. Everything indicates that the BBZ more as a safety net functions as a fully realized reintegration instrument. As the above calculation already showed the government cuts in the long run this themselves seriously in the fingers.