Last week, Frank Peters attended the 2nd DRRT U.S. Conference on Global Investor Protection (23rd and 24th of October 2014, Miami) as a guest speaker. In exploring new developments in the field of investor protection and alternatives for loss recovery actions in the U.S., DRRT invited several  experts from overseas to  shed light on the jurisdiction in each of their represented countries. As representative of the Netherlands, Frank Peters held two presentations on the respective subjects of Investor Protection in Europe and Financial Market Manipulations. Let’s recap!

As an international law firm and litigation funder, DRRT (part of Diaz Reus & Targ LLP) assists both domestic and global institutional investors with compliance and shareholder protection matters.  Cooperating with a global network of experienced specialty firms, DRRT’s services include the recovery of losses resulting from misstatements by public companies. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank of June 24, 2010 forecloses investor lawsuits in the U.S. for purchases on non-U.S. stock exchanges. This will give rise to non-U.S. investor right and loss recovery lawsuits.

Against this background DRRT has organized the 2nd U.S. Conference on Global Investor Protection thus creating a platform for the exchange of experiences and viewpoints from experts across the globe, demonstrating the significance of Europe as an alternative to U.S. based securities litigation.

Frank Peters’ first presentation gave a general outline of the sophisticated Dutch class action system. Contrary to the U.S. system, the Dutch system is based on claims issued by a plaintiff foundation acting for the benefit of a certain class of interested parties, rather than a class action on behalf of the damaged parties themselves. Foundations are allowed to litigate in the interest of all who are affected without any member or participant being named or becoming party of the litigation and concerning liability only. Monetary damages are therefore to be claimed individually, in follow-on proceedings once liability has been established in the initial foundation litigation. However, a new proposal  to allow for monetary damage claims in the initial proceedings as well  is currently pending before the Dutch House of Representatives. Also, since 2005, collective settlements can be declared binding for an entire class on an opt-out basis, which is enforceable throughout Europe.

Dutch law is strict on discovery – only specific documents known to exist are discoverable – but allows for a low threshold for pre-trial witness hearing. Also and as a possible alternative to discovery, Dutch law allows for an invasive inquiry carried out by court appointed investigators on the request of qualifying shareholders

Next, Frank Peters spoke as a panel member on the question of how the Dutch system deals with financial market manipulations and illustrated the general outlines of the Dutch system with the case of Rabobank’s  involvement in the manipulations of the LIBOR and EURIBOR rates.

Did you miss this edition of the DRRT U.S. Conference on Global Investor Protection and are you interested in Frank Peter’s contribution to this event? No worries: the 26th and 27th of January, he will speak at yet another DRRT conference in Frankfurt. For more info, check their website.