Tag Archives: Dutch Solicitor

Pre-judgment attachment under Dutch law

It is possible to attach assets of a debtor in the Netherlands before the Court procedure started. A Dutch attorney can prepare the attachment to seize assets available in Holland

Dutch Law Firm Free Advice

Attachment of Dutch Assets at short notice

This pre-judgment attachment (conservatoir beslag) is also effective and good pressure on the other party. Most often the attachment is used for recovery to pay claim and obtain to get security for this claim. All assets of the debtor are subject to attachment. Apart from the attachment for the collection of receivables (verhaalsbeslag) is it also possible to attach specific goods for the purpose of surrender (beslag tot afgifte) or attachment delivery of goods (beslag tot levering).It is also possible to make a third party attachment.

Garnishment of Dutch Bank Account

The funds in the bank of the debtor may be attached. So, goods held by a third party but to be delivered by the debtor may be attached. The third party, who is the target of the attachment, must declare within 4 weeks what he owes to the debtor.
To enforce intellectual property rights, it is also possible in case of alleged infringement of intellectual property rights, the attached assets for the purpose for preserving evidence (bewijsbeslag).

How to obtain a leaf for attachment in the Netherlands?

A Dutch lawyer can file the request to the competent court to obtain leaf for the attachment. The judge decided on the petition ex parte. Usually the defendant will not be heard by the judge. Only if the applicant request to sequestrate goods of the debtor, the judge will allow the debtor to respond to the filed request.

If the leaf for arrest for attachment is granted, usually is done under the condition the within 14 days from the date of the attachment the main proceedings of the underline claim are instituted.

Creating jurisdiction of the Dutch Court through attachment

In case the debtor is not domiciled in the Netherlands and the claimant can not obtain judgment in another country, which is enforceable in the Netherlands, then the attachment gives jurisdiction to the Dutch Court. For example: the Dutch Court can hear a case against a syrian oil company if an oil tanker of this company is attached in the Rotterdam harbor. The main proceedings are not attended then preliminary relieve proceedings may also qualify the main proceedings. This will be arbitration.

Legal Action to lift seized assets

The debtor who believes that the attachment is unjustified may start preliminary relief proceedings at short notice.

In all cases the attachment should be lifted if the debtor provides sufficient security in the form of a bank guarantee to a claim of the plaintive. The attachment will be lifted if the claim is without merit and if the attachment is considered this appropriate. An attachment will also be lifted if the formal requirements are not followed. However it is sufficient for the claimant to proof that the claim is not without merit and if a beginning of evidence is substantiated to the Court, it is very hard for the defendant to prevent or oppose the attachment. The pre-judgment attachment in the Netherlands is therefore very liberal compared to other countries. This attachment is used very often used by claimants.

Unlawful Garnishment under Dutch Law

If the claim of the claimant is not granted in the main proceedings, then the attachment was unlawful. The claimant is liable for all damages,  suffered by the party who was effected by the attachment. If the claim is only partially denied, then there is no liability for the claimant. If the claim is granted in the main proceedings, then pre-judgment of the attachment will be automatically be converted to an executory attachment. With the actual judgment of the claimant can then start execution of the arrested assets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dutch Law Attachment of Assets, Dutch legal entity, Jurisdisction Dutch Courts

Directors liability in the Netherlands

Directors of companies in the Netherlands can be held liable both in civil law and criminal law. Dutch law does not have the concept of disqualification.

Investment netherlands attorney corporate lawyer

Civil liability pf Director Dutch Company

Each director has a duty towards the company to properly perform the duties assigned to him (section 2:9 Civil Code). That’s the general rule. There is only a failure if it can be established that the director has failed in the performance which could be reasonably expected under the specific circumstances. Failure of a director does not automatically lead to liability. Liability is only incurred in the case of serious culpability (ernstige verwijtbaarheid). Whether serious culpability is involved has to be determined on a case by case basis whereby all relevant circumstances have to be taken into account.

Joint Liability under Dutch Law

All directors are, in principle, jointly and severally liable for inlawful acts. An individual director may be discharged if he can prove that (i) he cannot be held responsible for the failure and (ii) he has not been – actively – negligent in preventing the consequences thereof.

Tort action againt board of Dutch Company

A director may be held liable in tort (onrechtmatige daad – section 6:162 Civil Code)) by a creditor on the grounds that he entered into a transaction on behalf of the legal entity, while at a time he knew or should have reasonably known that the company would not beable to meet the obligations, and would not have sufficient assets from which the debt could be recovered.

Exculpation of Dutch managing Director

It is not sufficient that there was a more than negligible risk that the legal entity would not be able to meet its obligations. The director should have anticipated that the risk would actually materialize. If the managing director has not taken an irresponsible risk when he entered into the transaction, the managing director cannot be held liable if in retrospect it appears that the company nevertheless does not fulfill its obligations and it was foreseeable from the start that the legal entity would not provide for recourse.

A managing director can also be held liable in tort if he has allowed or effectuated that the legal entity does not meet its obligations under an earlier commitment and consequently causes damage to the other party.

Director’s Liability in bankrupcy

Such claim in tort can also be brought by the receiver in bankruptcy, on behalf of the creditors of the company (even though the bankrupt company would not have had a claim against the director).

If the legal entity does not provide sufficient resources to pay all creditors in the case of bankruptcy of the legal entity, the directors shall be jointly and severally liable for the deficit in the bankruptcy if (a) it is apparent that the management has not discharged its duties properly and (b) it is likely that the bankruptcy was caused by the mismanagement of the board. This is referred to as manifestly improper performance of duties (kennelijk onbehoorlijke taakvervulling) (section 2:138/248 Civil Code).

Mismanagement in Dutch Company

Only manifestly improper performance of duties during the three years preceding the bankruptcy is taken into account. Manifestly improper performance of duties means that no reasonably acting entrepreneur would have acted – in equivalent circumstances and with the knowledge the director had (or should have had) at the time – similarly.

If improper performance of duties by the board is established, all managing directors are, in principle, jointly and severally liable. If mismanagement is established, the directors are jointly and severally liable for the entire deficit of the bankrupt estate (although the court can mitigate damages).

Faults in bookkeeping

If the management has failed to keep its books properly (section 2:10 Civil Code) or has failed to publish the annual accounts with the Chamber of Commerce (section 2:394 Civil Code), improper performance is (irrefutably) deemed to have occurred and improper performance is (refutably) presumed to have been an important cause of the bankruptcy. An individual director can exculpate himself if he can prove that other factors were an important cause of the bankruptcy. However, the burden of proof lies with the director.

Similar liability rules apply for supervising directors and factual directors.

Criminal liability of Netherlands Comapny

Under particular circumstances, (factual) directors can be prosecuted (section 51 Dutch Criminal Code). For example, section 1 of the Economic Offences Act lists a number of obligations under Corporate Law, the non-compliance of which constitutes a criminal offence.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dutch Case Law, Holding Company Netherlands, Liability Netherlands, Netherlands Director's Liability