In our latest Financial Services Litigation Update we discuss recent judgments regarding the contracting obligation for banks when there is a risk of money laundering, the use of enforcement requests against foreign competitors and the impact of foreign regulatory enforcement measures on a fit and proper test for financial sector directors.

If you would like to discuss these or other financial law related topics, please feel free to contact us: bureau Brandeis – Financial Services Litigation.

Special duty of care of financial services providers and the risk of money laundering

Banks struggle with controlling the risk of money laundering. In this case, the court emphasizes that it is in itself perfectly justified that a bank imposes strict requirements on new clients within the framework of (the integrity requirements of) the Financial Supervision Act (Wft).

Nevertheless, the court finds that in this case the fight against money laundering should not preclude a special purpose entity that will be involved in (the legal production of) cannabis to apply for a bank account.

Although the bank claims that it has freedom of contract, the court considers that for commercial banks this does not exist to its fullest extent. After all, having a bank account is necessary to be able to participate in social and economic life.

According to the court, when it comes to being able to participate in payment transactions one should not make a distinction between private individuals and business customers. Both are in principle entitled to a bank account and, as a result, banks in principle have an obligation to contract all.

In addition, this special duty of care that banks have from their social function applies both to existing clients and to third parties, whereby the scope of the duty of care depends on the circumstances of the case.

The special feature of this case is that the claimant is a special purpose entity that is preparing to be admitted as a grower in the context of the “Experiment of the closed cannabis chain” on which a legislative proposal is pending.

Now that the aim of this project is precisely to reduce the illegal trade in cannabis by legally producing this substance and thus (indirectly) to prevent illegal activities and the risk of money laundering, the court allows the claim. The bank may, however, impose conditions on the use of the business account.

Court of Amsterdam 04-11-2019

ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:8144

Prosecuting director as fellow perpetrator or as de facto manager of alleged violation?

 The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has imposed an order subject to a penalty to a director of a group of entities that was offering securities for participation in its bond funds. The director allegedly acted as fellow perpetrator of alleged unfair commercial practices.

On the basis of the investment brochure, which is in the possession of the AFM, it is believed that essential information to make an informed decision about the investment is withheld from potential investors.

The AFM’s claim that the director acted as a fellow perpetrator is based on the fact that, among other things, the director set up and arranged the entities of the group, initiated the issue of the securities and is (indirectly) the director under the articles of association and sole depositary receipt holder /shareholder and thus cooperates closely and consciously with the group.

It is argued however that the director cannot be regarded as a fellow perpetrator of the alleged violation. The judge in preliminary relief proceedings agrees with this.

According to the preliminary relief judge, the AFM wrongly classified the director as fellow perpetrator of the alleged violation. On this ground, it is not allowed to impose an order subject to a penalty on him and to publish that penalty.

It follows from settled case law that it must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the cooperation between (legal) persons who cannot be equated has been so conscious and close, that they may be considered as fellow perpetrators.

In this case however, the behavior occurs within the framework of the normal business conduct of the entities and can be attributed to those entities. The AFM wrongfully equates the entities and the director. The court considers that the director may have had actual control of the alleged violation but cannot be referred to as a fellow perpetrator.

Now that the number of cases in which financial regulators are holding individual officers accountable for company violations, it is essential to always carefully examine the precise relationships and their qualifications, as this case shows.

Court of Rotterdam 12-07-2019

ECLI:NL:RBROT:2019:8214

Integrity screening of policymakers includes measures imposed by foreign regulatory authorities

 This case concerns a rejection of an application for a license to manage an investment institution, because the license requirements are not met. According to AFM, among other things, the integrity of the proposed policymakers is not beyond doubt.

The integrity of a policymaker is determined by the AFM on the basis of the policymaker’s intentions, actions and antecedents. The AFM will at any rate take into account supervisory antecedents and other facts and circumstances that indicate involvement in conduct in respect of which rules have been laid down in Dutch or foreign financial supervision legislation, if such  conduct may be relevant for the integrity screening.

A number of measures were imposed on the intended policymakers by the Luxembourg financial regulator in their capacity as policymakers of a Luxembourg investment manager. The measures were imposed because of the late submission of annual reports of this Luxembourg manager, belonging to the group and supervised there, and of funds managed by it. In addition, a measure was imposed on the manager for launching a new sub-fund without depositing its assets and not informing the Luxembourg regulator.

According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (the “CBb”), the AFM correctly classified these measures as supervisory antecedents, because they were imposed for non-compliance with financial legislation similar to that in the Netherlands. The CBb ignores the argument that considering the Luxembourg measures as antecedents would unreasonably stretch the envisaged effects of the Luxembourg measures.

The CBb is particularly concerned about the fact that the intended policymakers did not report the antecedents. The Luxembourg measures were not reported on the relevant part of the integrity screening form, nor as ‘other relevant circumstances’. Also after questions from the AFM, the Luxembourg measures  were not reported as antecedents. The failure to report was in itself also rightly classified as a supervisory antecedent, according to the CBb.

This case demonstrates the importance of conduct prior to the fit and proper test as well as the transparency that targeted policymakers exercise during the review process. The financial regulator is allowed to consider both aspects in its assessment.

Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal 15-10-2019

ECLI:NL:CBB:2019:498

Can a market party request regulatory enforcement against a competitor?

An Irish investment firm asked the AFM to take enforcement action against a Dutch investment firm for alleged violation of the statutory bonus cap rules.

The AFM did not respond to the enforcement request. According to the regulator, the investment firm has insufficiently demonstrated the impact on its competitive position and therefore there is an insufficient interest in a decision on its enforcement request.

In line with established case law, the Rotterdam Court considers that the Irish investment firm can only be considered as an interested party in the enforcement request, if enforcement action against the other investment firm can actually have an impact on its competitive position.

Both investment firms operate within the same market segment and coverage area. They trade for their own account, and are both market makers in largely the same exchange traded funds (ETFs) on the same stock markets and can therefore in principle be regarded as competitors.

Unlike the AFM, the court finds that it has become sufficiently plausible that if the AFM does not enforcement action, the Dutch investment firm will be in a more competitive position.

This is because in terms of remuneration policy the Dutch firm can be considered more attractive for (current and future) staff and it can also manage its costs more flexible through more variable remuneration. In addition, the Irish investment firm states that there are only minimal differences between its bid and offer prices and those of the Dutch investment firm, resulting in the deal going to the Dutch firm with the Irish investment firm having the second best price – but not getting the deal. The AFM has not rebutted this claim.

According to the court, the AFM cannot require the Irish investment firm to submit extensive economic analyses of the impact of regulatory  enforcement on its turnover in relation to that of the other investment firm. The AFM wrongly rejected the Irish investment firm’s request and is ordered by the court to decide on the firm’s objection to rejection of the request for enforcement.

This case shows that, with the correct justification, parties in a cross-border market can submit enforcement requests in other countries.

Court of Rotterdam 19-09-2019

ECLI:NL:RBROT:2019:7821

This update highlights some recent decisions from the Dutch courts relating to banking relationships, regulatory obligations and transparency in the financial services sector. Contact us if you have any questions or find out more about bureau Brandeis’ Financial Services Litigation here.

No termination of banking relationship without concrete evidence of AML breach
In this case a bank had blocked a client’s bank accounts based on the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financiering van terrorisme; Wwft) for not providing sufficient information on its suppliers and customers, whilst the account gave signs of involvement in fraud and money laundering. The bank’s client had moved from trading used car parts to selling small electronics and claimed continuation of the account agreement.

The preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam Court ordered the bank to continue the relationship in the usual manner. According to the court, a bank cannot terminate its relationship with a client and block its accounts if its Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns are not sufficiently demonstrated in the specific case.

The court held that the standards of reasonableness and fairness imply that termination of a banking relationship can only be based on sufficiently compelling grounds in the given circumstances. This requires due consideration of all interests.

In this context, the court attached importance to the bank’s duty of care and the access of account holders to payment transactions. At the same time, it also considered important that account holders enable the bank to comply with its obligations towards regulators and to protect the reputation of the bank and the integrity of the financial system.

On the basis of AML legislation and the related obligation to investigate, a bank cannot require evidence excluding involvement of the client’s customers and suppliers in money laundering. The bank’s AML-obligation to investigate, regards the client and who is behind the client. It does not regard who is behind the client’s customers, said the court.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch: Rechtbank Amsterdam 30 april 2019, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:3157.

Is requesting enforcement a successful way to elicit an administrative ruling?
Anyone can request a regulator to take enforcement measures against a market party in case of non-compliance with laws and regulations. Special about this case is that the enforcement request at hand was submitted by a market party in relation to conduct concerning its own product. This market party was the holder of a portfolio of credit agreements, for which a regulated entity acted as its portfolio manager.

The purpose of requesting enforcement against oneself, was to obtain a judgment from the court on certain policy amendments the AFM had requested from the manager. The AFM sent a letter to the manager in which it requested these amendments, whilst the amendments affected the market party.

The market party itself was not a licensed entity, but an affiliated undertaking of the portfolio manager which did hold an AFM license.

In the court proceedings, the AFM took the position that it does not have power to take enforcement action against the – unlicensed – market party. The court agreed with the AFM and considered that market conduct supervision of affiliated undertakings takes place through the central regulated legal entity. The latter is supposed to exercise control over the affiliated entities’ compliance with the rules and legislation.

In addition, the market party attempted to object and appeal against the AFM’s letter. The court confirmed however that no appeal lies against the AFM’s letter to the portfolio manager. The reason for this was that the letter was just a confirmation of what was discussed, and not a definitive administrative ruling on applicability of a legal provision.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch: Rechtbank Rotterdam 23 april 2019, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2019:3688.

Limited transparency and public access to information at financial regulators
Under the Government Information Public Access Act (Wet openbaarheid van bestuur), anyone can request a government body for information about an administrative matter. The Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, ‘DNB’) and its regulatory counterpart the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markter (Autoriteit Financiële Markten) however, are in principle excluded from the applicability of this Act.

The key question in this case was whether or not this exception for the financial regulators merely regards confidential information relating to supervision of individual financial institutions. This in view of the duty of secrecy as laid down in the Netherlands Financial Supervision Act with regard to confidential information obtained pursuant to supervisory powers.

According to the applicant in question, information on the financing of, in this case, DNB and the funding of financial supervision does not fall under the exception and should be made public.

The Council of State (Raad van State), the highest administrative court for these matters, found that the exception makes no distinction between types of documents. Therefore all documents following from and relating to supervision of financial institutions are excluded from requests to disclose such information.

Also in respect of the requested documents in this case, the Government Information Public Access Act does not apply to DNB. The fact that DNB did provide some information on the topic without being obliged to do so was not considered arbitrary.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch: Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State, 17 april 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1236

First compulsory transfer of shares following transfer plan of DNB upheld
This case regards the first compulsory transfer of shares of banks or insurers to a new owner ordered by the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, ‘DNB’) and discusses the intensity of the court’s assessment thereof. This specific case regards the transfer of assets in a life insurance company that created quite some media attention.

Given developments potentially jeopardizing the assets and solvency of the life insurer, financial regulator DNB intervened and prepared a plan for transfer of the shares in the life insurer, which instrument DNB has to execute the compulsory transfer of an ailing bank or insurer. In the eyes of DNB, the insurer’s board and shareholders failed to take sufficient measures to strengthen the capital position of the life insurer. DNB ultimately requested the Amsterdam Court to approve its transfer plan and pronounce the transfer regulations.

The courts’ decision was only subject to appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

It has confirmed that the court can approve a transfer plan if it summarily appears that there are dangerous developments regarding the assets, solvency, liquidity or technical facilities.

Although there has been a change in legal terminology to bring the relevant criterion of the Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht, ‘Wft’) in line with the Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet, ‘Fw’), this did not change the extent of the review says the Supreme Court. The court still is to perform a cautious review of such situation.

In the Supreme Court’s view this is exactly what happened. The court examined the substantive arguments of both parties and did not perform a more cautious review than the law requires. As a result it’s decision is upheld. The full decision can be read here in Dutch: Hoge Raad 17 mei 2019 ECLI:NL:HR:2019:746

This update highlights some recent decisions from the Dutch courts relating to regulatory investigations and enforcement measures in the financial services sector which we think are worth sharing. Contact us if you have any questions or find out more about bureau Brandeis’ Financial Services Litigation here.

AFM fine annulled due to a violation of the principle of equality

In this case, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (Autoriteit Financiële Markten, “AFM”) concluded that an investment company (beleggingsonderneming) acted in breach of the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel Toezicht, “Wft”) and underlying regulations. In addition to imposing measures against the investment company, the AFM decided to impose measures against two statutory directors and one employee who was also (indirect) shareholder for having actual control (feitelijk leidinggeven) of the company’s prohibited conduct.

The AFM imposed a heavier measure on the employee (i.e. an administrative fine) than it did on the two statutory directors (i.e. an instructive letter, including a warning). After an unsuccessful objection, the employee appealed with the Rotterdam Court that decided that a different role for the persons involved can in principle justify unequal enforcement by the AFM, for example, in terms of the amount of a fine.

In this case, the difference in measures imposed by the AFM was not proportionate in relation to the difference in culpability and financial interest of the alleged offenders. The court considered that the AFM did not present sufficient relevant circumstances to justify imposing very different measures. It only claimed that the acts of the employee were more seriously culpable than those of the statutory directors, because of an alleged financial benefit for the employee. According to the court, this factor was insufficient to justify imposing very different measures, especially given that an administrative fine is more onerous because it is in principle published – which has a defamatory effect.

The fact that the employee might have had financial benefit of the violation could have resulted in a difference in fines, but not in the huge difference in measures that the AFM made. In conclusion, the court held the appeal well-founded and annulled the challenged decision of the AFM due to a breach of the principle of equality (gelijkheidsbeginsel).

The full decision can be read here in Dutch:

Rb. Rotterdam 13 juni 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:6261.

Investigation by supervisor? Your employees won’t be cautioned

A bank located and licensed in Malta that is allowed to offer consumer credit in its home state, completed a notification procedure to also offer consumer credit from Malta to the Netherlands based on the so-called European passport for banks. The AFM however found that the bank was offering consumer credit from a branch office (bijkantoor) in the Netherlands, for which it had not followed the correct notification procedure.

The AFM therefore imposed an administrative fine of EUR 1,7 million on the bank for offering consumer credit without the required license. The bank argued in these interim relief proceedings that the AFM had no grounds thereto and that the intended publication of the fine should be suspended. The court however, saw no reason to suspend the AFM’s decision to impose a fine or suspend or alter the publication thereof.

Interesting about this decision is that a significant part of the evidence on the basis of which the AFM imposed a fine is derived from statements of an employee of the bank who was heard by the AFM during the investigation. The bank argued that the AFM could not use these statements as evidence, because the AFM did not read the employee its rights.

Based on recent decisions of the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State), the court decided that, in principle, there is no obligation to caution employees of a legal entity. The regulator only has to caution representatives (i.e. board members) and natural persons involved for having actual control (feitelijk leidinggevenden) who might be imposed a personal fine.

In this case, in addition to the employee’s statements, the AFM based its decision on information obtained from the bank’s Dutch website and the online DNB Register. According to the court, this evidence, when viewed in conjunction with each other, formed sufficient evidence for the AFM to impose an administrative fine on the Maltese bank.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch:

Rb. Rotterdam 20 december 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:10909.

Notifying unusual transactions and monitoring client relationships

In two recent cases, the highest appeal court (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, “CBb”) reviewed administrative fines that were imposed by the Financial Supervision Office (Bureau Financieel Toezicht, “BFT”). These fines were imposed against an accounting firm (boekhouder-fiscalist maatschap) and a tax consultant (fiscalist) respectively for allegedly breaching their obligation to (i) notify the Netherlands Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) about unusual transactions of their clients and (ii) continuously monitor client relationships.

The court considered that in addition to the relevant law, decrees and available AML guidelines, other factors can also be relevant to determine whether or not a transaction is to be considered unusual. In both cases, the court found that BFT failed to prove that the respective parties wrongfully did not notify the FIU about certain transactions. The respective parties either did not have actual knowledge of the alleged unusual transactions or had a decent explanation on why the transaction could not be considered as unusual.

BFT also accused both parties of failing to properly monitor their client relationships. BFT held it against the tax consultant that she could not immediately provide evidence about a transaction of one of her clients. According to the court, the tax consultant managed to provide a well-founded explanation for the transaction during the course of the investigation and the alleged failure to monitor client relationships was therefore not upheld.

BFT was however successful in proving that the accounting firm failed to successfully monitor its client relationship. So whilst it may have lacked knowledge about certain transactions and could not be fined for failing to notify the FIU about these transactions, the court decided that this lack of knowledge was due to a failure to perform proper client monitoring – which in itself is a violation of the Wwft.
Both judgments can be read here in Dutch:

CBb 5 februari 2019, ECLI:NL:CBB:2019:48. CBb 5 februari 2019, ECLI:NL:CBB:2019:58.

Unrestricted cooperation charge? Not required to provide will-dependent material

The Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, “DNB”) investigated whether two related companies were providing payment services without the required license and repeatedly requested them to provide information for this investigation. The companies however claimed they had the right to remain silent. DNB informed them that they had a duty to cooperate (Section 5:20 Awb) and imposed a cooperation charges on each of them, subject to a penalty of EUR 15,000.

The companies only partly complied with the cooperation charges and DNB declared the penalties incurred. In addition, DNB established that the companies violated their duty to assist and imposed an administrative fine of EUR 75,000 on each of them.

On appeal against the cooperation charge, the highest appeal court (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) held that part of the information requested by DNB was material existing dependent on the will of the companies (wilsafhankelijk materiaal).  DNB therefore should have included a restriction in its cooperation charge, stating that it would not use such will-dependent material for the purpose of imposing a fine or prosecution proceedings.

Given the absence of such restriction, the court declared void the cooperation charge and ordered DNB to amend the decisions. DNB then included the restriction in the cooperation charge and reduced the administrative fines from EUR 75,000 to EUR 65,000.

The court rejected the subsequent appeal of the companies against these amended decisions, as it considered that the companies breached their duty to cooperate. They could – but did not – provide the material that was not will-dependent. The court therefore decided that DNB could rightfully impose the administrative fines. The reduction of the administrative fines was considered proportional. The full decision can be read here in Dutch: CBb 16 april 2019, ECLI:NL:CBB:2019:156.

This is the second bureau Brandeis quarterly report of 2018 on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by filling in this form or sending us an email through this link.

Recently, the Global Legal Insights to Cartels 2019 was published. Hans Bousie, Louis Berger en Rieneke Reijnen wrote the chapter on cartel damages litigation in the Netherlands. The authors discuss the advantages of litigation before the Dutch courts in this type of mass damages cases, in light of recent Dutch case law regarding class actions. The whole chapter is available here.

After much anticipation within the Dutch legal community, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) held its inaugural court hearing on 18 February 2019. Fittingly for a litigation boutique that strives to be at the forefront of legal developments, bureau Brandeis was there. Floor Eikelboom defended his client’s interest.

The NCC is part of the Dutch judiciary, but its proceedings and judgments are in English. By marrying the ease of using the English language to the Dutch judiciary’s tradition of efficiency, reliability, transparency and low cost, it aims to become a prominent forum for international business litigation.

The concerned hearing was held only days after the – interlocutory – proceedings were commenced, demonstrating that NCC proceedings can resolve disputes swiftly, indeed.

This update highlights some recent decisions from the Dutch courts relating to the financial services sector which we think are worth sharing. Contact us if you have any questions or find out more about bureau Brandeis’ Financial Services Litigation here.

AFM fines both company and director and major shareholder. No double jeopardy.
Where a company breaches the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht, “Wft”), the financial regulators in the Netherlands can also impose a fine on a natural person involved for having actual control of (feitelijk leidinggeven aan) the prohibited conduct of such company.

The highest administrative court in the Netherlands confirms that this is also possible if such person happens to be both the director and major shareholder of the company. In these circumstances the regulator is to verify whether it is proportionate that the two fines effectively punish the same natural person twofold.

In this case, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (Autoriteit Financiële Markten, “AFM”) fines a company EUR 10,000 for offering investment services (verlenen van beleggingsdiensten) without a license. In addition, its director and major shareholder is fined EUR 200,000 for having actual control of the prohibited conduct.

The director and major shareholder challenges the proportionality of the fine. He also argues that the fine is to be reduced given his financial capacity. Both arguments however are unsuccessful. The two fines are considered proportionate because the fine for the company has already been reduced to EUR 10,000. The director also fails to prove that he has insufficient ability to pay his personal fine of EUR 200,000. Both fines are therefore upheld.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch: CBb, 7 augustus 2018, ECLI:NL:CBB:2018:413.

AFM is to include restrictions in cooperation charge as to use of requested information.
The AFM sends a regulatory information request (inlichtingenvordering) to a company outside the Netherlands in order to determine whether it is offering consumer credit or providing intermediary services on the Dutch market without the required license.

When the AFM does not receive a reaction to two separate requests, it imposes a cooperation charge subject to a penalty (last onder dwangsom). The alleged credit offeror does not provide any information in response to this cooperation charge. According to the AFM the company incurs the penalty payment as a result.

On appeal the company successfully argues that when the AFM is requesting information within control of the company (wilsafhankelijke informatie) by means of a cooperation charge, the AFM can only do so with the explicit restriction that any information within control of the company shall only be used for supervisory purpose and shall not be used for imposing any administrative fines or criminal charges.

Since the cooperation charge in question did not include a restriction on the use of the requested information, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, “CBb”) annuls it.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch: CBb, 4 september 2018, ECLI:NL:CBB:2018:444.

Custodian, depository and administrator not found liable for Ponzi-scheme damages.
A fund manager managing three off-shore funds appoints a securities trader as sub-investment manager with the power to invest all assets of the three funds. The fund manager also appoints a financial enterprise as its custodian, depository and administrator. In addition, it requires the custodian to appoint the sub-investment manager as sub-custodian.

The sub-investment manager turns out to be deploying a world wide Ponzi-scheme and goes bankrupt when this is discovered. As a consequence, the three funds also go bankrupt.

Investors in the three funds set up a claim foundation and commence legal proceedings against the financial enterprise that acted as custodian, depository and administrator, arguing that the financial enterprise (i) acted in breach of regulatory obligations regarding outsourcing and protection of investor funds, (ii) breached a duty of care towards the investors, (iii) committed a wrongful act (onrechtmatige daad) against the investors and (iv) issued misleading information.

The court disregards the assertions and rejects the investors’ claims. According to the court, there is no proof that the custodian knew or should have known that the sub-investment manager never actually invested the money from the funds and was essentially running a Ponzi-scheme. At the time, the financial enterprise also had no reason to suspect the fraud. Moreover the court considers that the custodian did not choose to appoint the fraudulent sub-custodian but was required to do so by the fund manager.

The full judgment can be read here in Dutch:
Rb. Amsterdam 22 maart 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:10601.

Both bank and customer have duty of care towards one another. Access to bank account.
While a company is under investigation of the public prosecutor due to suspicions of money laundering and drug trafficking, the police carry out a raid at its offices and seize its bank accounts. As a consequence, the bank terminates its relationship with the company. The company does not accept the termination and commences interim relief proceedings against the bank.

Between May 2017 and January 2018, parties go to court four times. The company states that in the given circumstances it cannot open a bank account with another bank. It therefore argues that its interest in access to a bank account must weigh heavier than the bank’s interest to terminate the relationship due to potential reputational and AML risks. The court finds that the bank was allowed to terminate the relationship because the company had not taken sufficient compliance measures. This has made it impossible for the bank to comply with requirements of the Dutch Anti Money Laundering Act (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financiering van terrorisme, “Wwft”).

However, new facts come to light and the company starts new interim relief proceedings in order to re-open its bank accounts. And with success.

Given the changed circumstances (i.e. the public prosecutor dropped the investigation and the company took serious measures to strengthen its compliance and reduce AML-risks) the court now rules that the bank should allow access to the bank accounts again. In this latest decision the court emphasizes that both parties have a duty of care (zorgplicht) towards one another, and the fact that the company took serious measures to reduce AML risks shows that it has fulfilled this duty towards the bank.

The full judgment can be read here in Dutch:
Rb. Amsterdam 2 november 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:7931.

Decision to place payment service provider under administration can be published.
The Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, “DNB”) decides to appoint an administrator (curator) at a payment service provider (betaaldienstverlener, “PSP”) for not complying with the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wft), the Dutch Anti Money Laundering Act (Wwft) and the Sanctions Act 1977 (Sanctiewet 1977). DNB also decides to publish this decision, since it is in principle obligated to publish administrative sanctions (bestuurlijke sancties) pursuant to section 1:97 Wft.

The PSP commences interim relief proceedings in an attempt to prevent publication. It argues, among other things, that (i) being placed under administration is not an administrative sanction that is to be published pursuant to section 1:97 Wft and (ii) PSD1, which is implemented in the Wft, does not provide a specific ground for publishing these types of sanctions (i.e. being placed under administration). The PSP’s arguments do not succeed.

Even though the appointment of an administrator in principle has an internal effect and does not necessarily have to be disclosed, the interim relief judge considers the appointment of an administrator at the PSP an administrative sanction within the meaning of section 1:97 Wft that can be made public.

The judge also holds that, although PSD1 does not provide a specific possibility for publishing these types of sanctions, publication is possible under the Wft. PSD1 gives Member States the liberty to enforce the directive in a manner they deem fit, as long as the enforcement measures are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. According to the interim relief judge, this is the case with publishing the decision to place the PSP under administration.

The full decision can be read here in Dutch:
Rb. Rotterdam 18 juli 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:8284.

Bank may have certain duty of care vis-à-vis professional third-party investors.
It is settled case law of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad, “HR”) that under circumstances banks have a special duty of care not only vis-à-vis its clients but given their social function also vis-à-vis non-expert third parties. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal now rules that banks, to some extent, also have a duty of care towards third parties that are acting in a professional capacity.

The Court of Appeal considers that, although professional parties are expected to be able to make their own investment decisions and ask for advice when needed, a bank may have a duty of care towards third parties acting in a professional capacity when it discovers irregularities on accounts held with the bank. When determining the scope of the bank’s duty of care, the fact that parties are acting in a professional capacity can be taken into account.

In this case, a client of the bank has embezzled money from investors using a main account at the bank. The investors have been invited to deposit money to sub accounts that would be invested via the main account.

The Court of Appeal considers that the irregularities on the accounts in question became known to the bank. It also considers that the bank identified representatives of the investors in person at a local bank office in Brussel when they opened the sub accounts and that it was aware of the investors’ co-signing rights on the sub accounts. The fact that the bank nevertheless has failed to inform the investors when it closed the main account and all sub accounts, is considered a breach of its duty of care towards these third party investors.

Although the bank successfully argued that it could not disclose that it was investigating potential fraud of its client, also given the general prohibition from disclosing (tipping-off) reports of suspicious transactions (ongebruikelijke transacties), it should have neutrally informed the investors that the sub accounts were closed, says the Court of Appeal.

The full judgment can be read here in Dutch:
Hof Den Haag 25 september 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2417.

December 2018.

Simone Peek & Casper Rooijakkers

This is the first bureau Brandeis quarterly report of 2018 on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by filling in this form or sending us an email through this link.

We are very excited to invite you to join our Litigators Sunrise Run during the IBA in Rome, 2018. An early morning run with colleagues from all over the world.

Together we will run through the city center of Rome, passing some of the most beautiful sites. Whether you are a casual runner or an Olympic athlete, join us for 4 miles of celebrating health and newfound friendship.

We look forward to seeing you on 10/10/18!

The route:

The finer details:

Wednesday 10 October 2018 07:15 AM

Via dei Cerchi 00186 Roma RM, Italy

Our bus will take you from several conference hotels to the start of the run. A delicious Italian breakfast will be served on the bus. You will be back in time to start your IBA conference day, fully energized.

To ensure your spot, please rsvp via sunriserun@bureaubrandeis.com

or contact Simone Peek or Frank Peters of bureau Brandeis.

Amsterdam, 19 June 2018. Brits residing in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the EU will continue to be left in a state of insecurity regarding their rights post-Brexit. As such, they will not know whether they can remain in their EU-country of choice or whether they can freely move within the EU after Brexit. This is the result of a decision by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal not to ask questions to the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg (“CJEU”) about the EU citizenship rights post-Brexit.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal quashed an earlier decision of the Amsterdam District Court. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal agrees with the District Court that Brexit creates insecurity for many Brits and that ultimately it is up to the CJEU to decide whether Brits will continue to be able to benefit from the rights derived from their EU citizenship. In addition, the Court of Appeal states that it is questionable whether Brexit will result in Brits automatically loosing their freedom of movement and residence rights.

The main reason for not referring questions at this stage, is that, according to the Court of Appeal, the claims brought in summary proceedings are insufficiently concrete.

The claimants are currently carefully examining the judgment in order to determine next steps. These may include an appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court within three months or initiating a proceeding on the merits.

Some key paragraphs from the Brexit-ruling

Par. 3.10

Like the Judge in summary proceedings, the Court of Appeal confirms that the question of the legal status of citizens of the United Kingdom who reside in another EU Member State and thus exercised their rights and freedoms under Article 20 TFEU, after the United Kingdom has left the EU, must be answered according to EU law. The Court of Appeal also agrees with the decision of the Judge in summary proceedings that it is reasonable to doubt the correctness of an interpretation of Article 20 TFEU meaning that the loss of the status of citizen of an EU Member State will automatically lead to the fact that the EU citizenship derived rights and freedoms, as far as the right to free movement and residence, are lost.

Par. 3.11

Although the CJEU is the designated authority to answer the question of which interpretation is correct by asking preliminary questions, this does not mean that these questions should be asked in the present proceedings. According to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the preliminary reference to the CJEU is only used when a decision of the CJEU is necessary to rule on the dispute before the referring court. That is not the case in this case in the opinion of the court. To this end, the following is considered.

Par. 3.12

(…) The court establishes, with the State and the Municipality, that the contested decision does not discuss the specific claims of Williams c.s. Regarding the claims of Williams c.s., according to the Court it should be concluded that these are too vague and indeterminate in order to be granted in this summary proceeding, irrespective of the answer to the question whether the aforementioned interpretation of Article 20 TFEU is correct.

————————————————————————————————-

“We are obviously disappointed with the court’s decision. This case has always been about seeking clarification. Not only for the 46.000 Brits living in the Netherlands, but also for the 1.2 million Brits living in other EU countries. Given today’s judgment much uncertainty remains.”

Stephen Huyton, plaintiff.

————————————————————————————————–

The case was brought before the Amsterdam District Court against the Dutch State and the City of Amsterdam by five Brits living in the Netherlands and the associations Brexpats and Commercial Anglo Dutch Society (“CADS”), who claimed that the State must respect their EU rights after a Brexit.

EU citizenship enables every EU citizen to freely move within the EU and take up residence in another Member State. This is what 1.2 million Brits in Europe have done. They can work and start families in the residence of their choosing and enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens.

On 7 February 2018 summary judge Mr Bakels decided to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. The honorable Judge considered that Brits may not necessarily lose their EU citizenship, which might be considered as an “acquired right”. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal has now decided to annul this decision.

It would have been the first time that a court would ask the CJEU about the consequences of Brexit for the citizenship rights of Brits. The case was promised to become a landmark case about EU citizenship.

————————————————————————————————-

“It is now confirmed in two instances that only the CJEU can determine what Brexit means for my clients. I urge all court in the EU to bring these issues to the CJEU as soon as possible. Brits in the EU are entitled to legal certainty about their citizenship rights upon which they have build their lives.”

Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

————————————————————————————————-

bureau Brandeis, the law firm handling the case, litigates in the public interest from its mission to bring socially relevant legal questions before the judge. bureau Brandeis has been and is involved several other public interest cases, where fundamental rights are at stake. They include cases on the Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act and the right to legal assistance during questioning. The firm has wide experience in litigating before the CJEU and the ECtHR.

For more information on the Brexit case you can contact:

Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm

Christiaan.alberdingkthijm@bureaubrandeis.com

Please find more information on the case via the following links:

https://bureaubrandeis.com/update-kort-geding-over-de-brexit-en-het-eu-burgerschap/

https://bureaubrandeis.com/kort-geding-brexit-en-eu-burgerschap/

This is the fourth bureau Brandeis quarterly report of 2017 on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by filling in this form or sending us an email through this link.

Once an EU citizen, always an EU citizen? That sums up the complex legal questions put forward to the summary Judge Mr Floris Bakels in a case that may have severe consequences for the rights of Britons living on the continent. The case was initiated by and on behalf of Britons living in the Netherlands who claim that the Dutch state and the city of Amsterdam must ensure their EU citizenship rights. The claimants were represented by bureau Brandeis. On 17 January 2018 a hearing in summary proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court took place. The ruling is expected on 7 February 2018.

During the hearing, the claimants argued that the negotiating parties of both the EU and the UK incorrectly assume that the consequence of a Brexit is that Britons will automatically lose their EU citizenship and connected rights guaranteed by article 20 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (“TFEU”). The Brexit has sparked a vehement debate on whether EU citizenship and connected rights are inalienable. It follows from previous case law from the EU Court of Justice that the rights of EU citizens are to a large extent autonomous. The claimants therefore requested the Court to ask questions to the EU Court of Justice on how article 20 TFEU must be interpreted.

Whether the EU and the UK will succeed in reaching a Brexit deal is uncertain. On 8 December the negotiating parties published a “sufficient progress” report.

The EU citizens rights are at risk, now the UK has invoked article 50 Treaty on European Union (“TEU”) that regulates the withdrawal from the EU. The fact that the UK has triggered article 50 TEU opens a box of Pandora with questions on the exact procedure. For example, concerning the content of the withdrawal agreement and to which extent it must be ratified by all Member States. The claimants therefore requested the summary Judge to also ask questions to the EU Court of Justice on how article 50 must be interpreted.

The defendants, the Dutch state and the municipality of Amsterdam, represented by Pels Rijcken & Drooglever Fortuijn, primarily argued that the issue is a matter of politics and that there is no real dispute. Nevertheless, they disputed the interpretation of article 20 TFEU the claimants put forward.

Several media outlets reported on the case, amongst others:

• The Guardian, “Britons tell Dutch court their EU rights cannot be removed”;
• The Guardian, “Britons in Netherlands take fight for their EU rights to Dutch court”;
• BBC, “Brexit: Britons take EU rights bid to Dutch court”;
• Washington Post, “UK citizens ask Dutch court to protect post-Brexit EU rights”;
• FD, “Amsterdamse Britten vragen rechter om pijn van brexit te verzachten”;
• NRC, “Rechter Bakels buigt zich over de Brexit”;
• Nieuwsuur, “‘Brexpats’ claimen EU-burgerschap: ‘Hoe kon ik hierop voorbereid zijn?’”

Judgment will be delivered on 7 February. Through these links you can read the writ of summons and the memorandum of pleadings (in Dutch only). We will keep you posted.

For more information, please contact:

Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm

+31 20 7606505

Christiaan.alberdingkthijm@bureaubrandeis.com

This is the third bureau Brandeis quarterly report of 2017 on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by sending us an email through this link.

bureau Brandeis expands with new partner Simone Peek

Simone Peek has joined Amsterdam based litigation firm bureau Brandeis as a partner. Her practice focuses on complex cases on financial law and other regulatory disputes. She also advises on risk management and compliance.

Simone Peek joins bureau Brandeis from Clifford Chance, where for more than 10 years she represented companies and their directors in regulatory enforcement actions and related proceedings.

“Simone’s appointment perfectly demonstrates our continued strategy to grow into litigation firm with broad reach and unparalleled expertise,” says Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm, one of the founders of bureau Brandeis. “Simone is an important piece of the puzzle to realize our ambition. Her unique knowledge and experience in the field of financial law will be invaluable for our clients.”

Corporate litigation partner Frank Peters: “With Simone we further strengthen our litigation capacity. Simone brings specific sector knowledge of the financial markets. Her experience in cross-border litigation and her time in Washington, D.C. will help expand our practice in the United States.”

Simone Peek: “I am very impressed with the experience of the team, the drive and focus, and strong commitment to clients. This fits in seamlessly with my practice. It is so important in sensitive discussions with regulators and other parties, where reputation is as much at stake as financial risks and more and more often directors are concerned individually.”

bureau Brandeis specializes in litigation and acts for companies in all areas of the law, with a preference for the challenger. Corporate litigation, commercial litigation, privacy, financial law, administrative law, intellectual property, media and entertainment, international arbitration, cassation and antitrust law. With the arrival of Simone the firm now has 25 attorneys.

On 25 May 2018 the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) comes into effect. From that date the GDPR will have a direct effect on all EU Member States, and must be complied with. The current Dutch Personal Data Protection Act (“Wbp”) based on the Privacy Directive of 1995 (Directive 95/46/EC) will then cease to apply.

The GDPR radically alters the legal framework for the protection of personal data. It introduces new concepts, contains comprehensive new obligations for business, and strengthens the rights of data subjects (individuals whose data is being processed). Furthermore, the GDPR introduces hefty maximum fines of € 20 million or 4% of an organisation’s global turnover.

The GDPR has implications for virtually every company or organisation not only in the European Union, but also beyond its borders. Given strict regulations combined with high fines, it is prudent for companies to be aware of the content of the GDPR at an early stage, and to prepare themselves accordingly. We will show how our clients and business contacts can prepare for the GDPR as efficiently as possible in twelve steps. bureau Brandeis regularly assists parties with respect to the application of privacy legislation and has plenty of experience with the GDPR. Naturally, we will be happy to assist you with your preparations for the GDPR.

This is the second bureau Brandeis quarterly report of 2017 on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by sending us an email through this link.

Scania, one of the six large truck manufacturers was fined by the European Commission today, 27 September 2017, for € 880 million for participating in the so called trucks cartel. Earlier, on 19 July 2016, the other five participants in the same cartel were fined as well after reaching a settlement with the European Commission. Because of their participation in the investigation of the European Commission the other truck manufacturers, Daimler, DAF, Iveco, Volvo/Renault and MAN received discounts under the leniency notice and the settlement notice on their fines. MAN as the whistle blower even received a 100% reduction. With todays fine added to it, the European Commission sets a record fine of a staggering 3.8 billion Euros.

Because the other five truck manufacturers have reached a settlement with the Commission, their case is closed, meaning no appeals are pending. Because Scania did not cooperate with the Commission, it took more than a year extra to complete the case against Scania. Scania was found guilty of fixing the prices of trucks and colluding on passing on the costs of new technologies to meet stricter emission rules.

The Commission in its press release expresses her relieve on ending her investigation in this especially long lasting cartel (over fourteen years), covering over 90% of all truck sales in Europe in the period of 1997 until 2011.

That Scania did not cooperate with the Commission has a threefold effect. In the first place the decision of the Commission against Scania is open for appeal, and we are pretty sure Scania is about to appeal the decision. In the second place since Scania did not comply, her fine was not reduced, neither under the leniency nor under the settlement notice, thus resulting in this massive fine of

€ 880 Million, only topped by the fine of over 1 Billion Euros by Daimler and that was even after a 40% reduction.

In the third and not in the last place, the effect on follow on damages litigation. Over the last five years, there has been a steep rise in damages litigation following cartel decisions by the European Commission. These so called follow on cases can lean on tow presumptions. The first being that the Case law of the Court of Justice and Council Regulation 1/2003 confirm that in cases for national courts, a Commission decision constitutes binding proof that the behavior took place and was illegal. In the second place following the so called Cartel Damages Directive cartels are supposed to cause harm and thereby result in the obligation to pay damages.

So for all six manufacturers there is this binding decision. But Scania still has a chance to escape, she alone can and will appeal the decision against her. Nevertheless follow on cases have already been filed in Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands already and there are more to come. The truck manufacturers are up for another battle.

Hans Bousie

This is the first bureau Brandeis quarterly report of 2017 on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by sending us an email through this link.

This is the fourth bureau Brandeis quarterly report on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by sending us an email through this link.

This is the third bureau Brandeis quarterly report on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by sending us an email through this link

This is the second bureau Brandeis quarterly report on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. In this summary we concentrate on follow-on and stand-alone cases in relation to cartel damage cases as well as damage caused by abuse of a dominant position in the market.

We focus on Europe and the United States. Within Europe, the Netherlands, the UK and Germany are the jurisdictions where most cases take place and they therefor receive the most attention. We only touch on developments outside Europe and the United States if we deem them to be relevant. For example, in this Quarterly we will discuss an Israeli case (p. 7) as it provides a relevant insight in European case-law.

On the other hand, we mention the case of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal under ‘Private enforcement in cartel damages claims, case-law’ to show that leniency rules are not applied in the same way everywhere in the world. In Europe, parties that use the leniency programme are not immune from follow-on claims, which apparently is the case in South Africa. This is a discussion that is currently also taking place in Europe. The use of the leniency programme is very important for the Commission’s policy as it increases the ability to round up cartels. On the other hand, cartel participants have noticed that this may make them more vulnerable to follow-on claims, which significantly reduces their enthusiasm to use such programmes.

South Africa also shows up in another way. At ‘Developments regarding public law aspects of cartel damages’ we see that President Zuma has promulgated legislation to facilitate the enforcement of the competition legislation. This legislation has introduced the possibility to give de facto persons in charge prison sentences of as much as 10 years.

We trust that this summary is of use to you. We would welcome any additions to or comments on this message.

You may download our quarterly report here.

Dutch litigation firm bureau Brandeis with support from The Netherlands Embassy in Washington DC, presents a practical primer on the opportunities the Netherlands has to offer to foreign lawyers and parties seeking effective solutions of international (financial) disputes.

Despite continuous harmonization efforts, the European Union is a patchwork of widely varying legal systems, with no clear ‘federal’ statute facilitating EU wide litigation solutions. The pending Brexit only increases the complexities of bringing suits against defendants throughout the EU. For plaintiffs and their lawyers, seeking efficient resolution of a dispute for which an EU country may offer jurisdiction, substantial hurdles may be perceived, even if the damage is substantial and the tort is clear.

Dutch litigation experts will set out the opportunities the Netherlands offers to US and other foreign law firms, to export their cases to the EU through the Netherlands, while keeping control of the case, by:

• Reproducing US class settlements throughout the EU, through follow-on proceedings before the Amsterdam Court of Appeals with universal effect in the EU;
• Bringing antitrust cases before a Dutch court, for the damage caused throughout the EU;
• Court proceedings carried out fully in English, on EU soil even post Brexit, with the introduction of the Netherlands Commercial Court as per January 1, 2017.

Program

5.00 pm: doors open

5.30 pm:

• Word of welcome from the Dutch Embassy in Washington DC
• “Introduction to EU litigation in the Netherlands”, President of the Dutch Bar, Bart van Tongeren
• EU Antitrust litigation after Brexit, Hans Bousie, bureau Brandeis
• The European answer to US class action settlements, Frank Peters, bureau Brandeis

6.30-7:30 pm: drinks

Organizer: bureau Brandeis – www.bureaubrandeis.com

Questions: Hans Bousie, hans.bousie@bureaubrandeis.com / +31 650270097

This is the first bureau Brandeis quarterly report on the developments in the area of cartel damage litigation. You may download our quarterly report here.

Would you like to receive the next edition of our quarterly report by email? Please subscribe to our mailinglist by sending us an email through this link.

Professor Paul Geerts is of counsel at bureau Brandeis.

Paul is an internationally acclaimed Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen). Earlier in his academic career he specialized in corporate law issues.

His academic work consists of more than 180 publications. Among other works, Professor Geerts is the author of the textbooks  Protection of Intellectual Property (Bescherming van de intellectuele eigendom) and Some Procedural Aspects of the Right of Enquiry (Enkele formele aspecten van het enquêterecht).

In addition he is an editor for well-known periodicals and law reviews.

Professor Geerts contribution to bureau Brandeis is of tremendous value. All our attorneys call upon him to benefit from his encyclopedic knowledge. He revises draft court briefs and sharpens the legal strategy. Professor Geerts is often called upon to give second opinions to attorneys of other firms. Furthermore he can submit legal opinions in order to support a specific viewpoint in a pending procedure. Paul often hosts in-house seminars for clients of bureau Brandeis.

In addition to his work as Professor and of counsel, Professor Geerts works as deputy judge for several courts.

Three partners and their staff will join bureau Brandeis as of 1 September 2014, thus bringing new practice areas to the firm: corporate litigation, commercial litigation and cassation appeals.

This expansion gives bureau Brandeis a position unrivalled in the Netherlands. No other firm with a focus on litigation offers such a wide range of services.

This expansion, part of bureau Brandeis’s aim announced earlier of offering first-class litigation in a wider field, was preceded by another addition to the firm: Hans Bousie and his team.

The teams
The three new partners, Jozua van der Beek, Louis Berger and Frank Peters, are undisputed authorities in their fields of expertise. Until now, they were all partners at Spigt Litigators. Before that

Van der Beek was affiliated with De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. Together, the new partners have unique knowledge and experience in the field of litigation.

The teams of Van der Beek, Berger and Peters are completed by their staff members Floor Eikelboom, Rieneke Reijnen, Michelle Krekels, Jonas Verheul and Marije Hazenberg and secretaries Diana Wildeboer and Desiree Versteeg.

Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm and Hans Bousie: “We’re really looking forward to working with our new partners Frank, Jozua and Louis. As we join forces with these partners and their practices, a process that we have been working on behind the scenes for quite some time nears completion. For us, this is the true start of bureau Brandeis. Further expansion in the near future is definitely not ruled out.”

Frank Peters and Louis Berger: “We choose litigation and the side of the challenger. Our position in proceedings against the government, regulators, big banks and accounting firms is completely unfettered. This gives bureau Brandeis a unique, independent position in the market.”

About the new partners
With twelve years of experience in civil cassation practice, Jozua van der Beek is a top-notch cassation lawyer.
Louis Berger specialises in corporate and commercial litigation, including inquiry proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber, directors’ and officers’ liability proceedings and insolvencies.
Frank Peters specialises in disputes between shareholders of both listed and unlisted companies, with a particular interest in hedge funds.

About bureau Brandeis
bureau Brandeis is a boutique litigation practice focusing on commercial legal practice. The firm works in the following practice areas: corporate litigation, commercial litigation, media & entertainment, internet & technology, public policy, compliance and cassation. Strategic litigation leading to well-defined societal developments is an essential aspect of the entire practice.

For journalists

• For questions, please contact Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm (0031 6 – 2501 7235), Frank Peters (0031 6 – 51054 668), or bureau Brandeis (0031 20 – 760 6505).
• Portrtaits of the partners are available: Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm (web/print) Jozua van der Beek (web/print), Louis Berger (web/print), Hans Bousie (web/print) and Frank Peters (web/print), as are logo’s (web/print) and an illustration of the site.
• Follow us on twitter @bureauBrandeis