The role of the Van Hool family has not been played out even after bankruptcy

Despite Van Hool’s bankruptcy, the role of the family behind the bus builder has not ended. Would-be rescuers or acquirers cannot ignore her, as she has a firm grip on the factory in North Macedonia and the industrial real estate in Belgium.

Last weekend, the family branches behind Van Hool failed to resolve the inheritance issue that has divided them for decades. However, that was one of the conditions to save the bus builder from bankruptcy.

Crisis manager Marc Zwaaneveld had put the knife to the throat of the family members last week. If they did not agree to an amicable settlement in an inheritance dispute by Monday, he threatened to file for bankruptcy. Due to that dispute, two-thirds of the shares were blocked, which would deter potential (industrial) partners or acquirers.

The dispute revolves around Ingrid and Simone, two daughters of Bernard Van Hool, the paterfamilias of the Lierse bus builder, who died in 1974. Until now, they had been excluded from share ownership. When they saw that three of Bernard’s eight sons were bought out of the company, they went to court in 1999 to claim their share of the inheritance. He proved them right.

However, the procedure dragged on endlessly and ticked like a family time bomb within the company. To break the impasse, the two sister branches made an ultimate proposal on Sunday evening. This meant that the blocked Van Hool shares could still be released. With this final gesture they hoped that a third party could be found willing to invest in capital or to provide fresh money. If someone actually agreed, they could obtain the share to which they are entitled through a bank guarantee.

Remarkably, that proposal was rejected by the five family branches, which each hold 20 percent of Van Hool’s shares. The relatives of Ingrid and Simone then announced that the family shareholders ‘could not be on the same page to discuss, let alone resolve, the inheritance claims of the family branches of the two sisters’. According to them, the owner branches, of which CEO Filip Van Hool is a part, offered ‘no workable alternative’ to find a solution.

The five shareholder branches deny this. “We have made several proposals to the sister branches, the last one dating from Monday morning,” says the lawyer who represents three of the five branches. According to him, the key certainly lay with the relatives of the two sisters. However, there was no explanation why they were unwilling or unable to accept the sisters’ proposal.

The suspicion is that Van Hool’s bankruptcy was not entirely against the interests of the shareholders. The disagreement in the family has now led to the bankruptcy of the Van Hool company, which houses the group’s industrial activities. This reduces the value of the shares of the five branches to zero. But in one fell swoop they are also freed from the heavy debt burden of almost 400 million euros on the company.

The assets that the five branches have in the umbrella family holding company Immoroc – and to which the sister branches have not laid claim – are excluded from the bankruptcy. These include the industrial real estate (factories and parking lots) of the bus manufacturer in Belgium and the strategic factory in North Macedonia. In other words: the role of family shareholders is not over. More than ever, they continue to have a say in the search for a savior or acquirer.

During the press conference, Zwaaneveld repeatedly showed that parallel to the family discussions about the inheritance issue, a second process was kept alive: negotiating with possible buyers in order to be able to make a quick restart. These conversations may be able to be brought to a successful conclusion quickly. It must be clear by March 31 at the latest whether this will ultimately be successful.