Background

Under Dutch law, the directors of a (private) company can be held personally liable by the trustee for the bankruptcy deficit. Liability can arise when the directors have manifestly performed their management duties improperly and if it is reasonable to assume that bankruptcy was declared as a result. Section 2:248(4) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) contains a list of grounds for reducing the amount of the directors’ liability.

Decision

Since Article 3: 305a of the Dutch Civil Code entered into force on 1 July 1994, a legal person (usually a foundation) can institute legal proceedings that serve to protect interests outlined in its articles of association (for example, recovering damage caused to the members of the foundation concerned). The mass claims foundation was born.

On 1 January 2021, new Dutch restructuring law Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (or WHOA) came into effect. Here, we run through what WHOA is and cover the first decisions handed down under the new law.

What is WHOA?

The number of bankruptcies in the Netherlands is rising.

Therefore, in mid-April, a number of professors, insolvency practitioners, employers and labour unions petitioned to accelerate the introduction of WHOA (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord – the Act on Dutch Court Confirmation of Extrajudicial Restructuring Plans to Avert Bankruptcy), the introduction of which was already planned.

Unfortunately your business can be confronted with bankruptcy of one of your (Dutch) business partners. In most cases this will damage your business. We can help you to avoid or limit damages. In this edition of TW FOUR we will set out FOUR ways to protect your business from the bankruptcy of one of your (Dutch) business partners.

Op insolventiegebied heeft de Hoge Raad in 2016 een aantal interessante uitspraken gedaan.

Summary

In its judgment Rabobank/Reuser of 3 June 2016, the highest court of justice in the Netherlands (Hoge Raad or Supreme Court) ruled that:

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.

Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited¹, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others

Insolvency professionals will welcome the High Court's decision in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2014] which is clear authority that the onus is upon retention of title claimants, not administrators, to locate and identify retention of title goods. The court made clear that to require the administrator to identify retention of title goods would be "totally unrealistic and practically unworkable."