Articles

Preliminary draft Dutch cross-border conversions

Preliminary draft Dutch cross-border conversions

Preliminary draft Dutch cross-border conversions

08.07.2014 NL law

At the beginning of this year a consultation was held with respect to a draft Act on the cross-border conversions of companies with share capital. The preliminary draft of this Act establishes the preconditions that must be fulfilled before a cross-border conversion of a Dutch public company (naamloze vennootschap or ‘NV’) or a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid or ‘BV’) into a foreign company with share capital can take place and vice versa. The intended purpose of the Act is to protect the interests of creditors, minority shareholders and employees. 

The preliminary draft regulates a conversion in the following two situations:

  • a Dutch NV or BV converts itself into a company with share capital governed by the law of another member state of the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), or into a Dutch NV or BV governed by the law of the public bodies of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, or Saba (which countries used to be part of the Dutch Antilles); and
  • a company with share capital from another member state of the EEA or a Dutch NV or BV governed by the law of the public bodies of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, or Saba, converts itself into a Dutch NV or BV.

The scope of the preliminary draft is limited from both a substantive and a geographical perspective.

From a substantive perspective, cross-border conversion is limited to companies with share capital. The cross-border conversion of other types of legal entities is included in the preliminary draft. Based on European case law, there seems to be no reason to limit cross-border conversions to companies with share capital. This will mean that cross-border conversions of legal entities other than the NV and BV will be permitted, but not regulated. The fact that basic regulation for a conversion of these entities is not available under Dutch law creates uncertainty from a legal perspective.

From a geographical perspective, the regulation is limited in scope because the cross-border conversion to and from an entity governed by the law of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten, is not included in the preliminary draft. Regulation in this respect is recommended given the economic ties between the Netherlands and these countries and the fact that corporate structures often include entities governed by Dutch law and the law of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten. In addition, corporate law in these countries is very similar to that in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the regulation is limited to cross-border conversions in the EEA.

Team

Related news

20.06.2018 NL law
Op weg naar één Europese spoorwegruimte: de aanpassing van de Nederlandse wetgeving aan het Europese recht

Articles - Het zogenaamde 'Vierde Spoorwegpakket' zal belangrijke gevolgen hebben voor de Europese spoorwegruimte. De Nederlandse regering maakt goede vaart met de aanpassing van het nationale recht aan de eisen die uit het Vierde Spoorwegpakket voortvloeien. Inmiddels is een daartoe strekkend wetsvoorstel aanhangig bij de Tweede Kamer. De vaste commissie voor Infrastructuur en Waterstaat heeft eind vorige maand het verslag van haar bevindingen ten aanzien van het wetsvoorstel uitgebracht.

Read more

11.06.2018 NL law
Legislative proposal on changes to the Dutch CIT fiscal unity made public

Short Reads - On 22 February 2018 the European Court of Justice ('ECJ') decided on two cases (C-398/16 and C-399/16), which are relevant for purposes of the 'per-element-approach' concerning the Dutch corporate income tax ('CIT') fiscal unity regime. To mitigate the (negative financial) impact of the decisions of the ECJ, the Dutch State Secretary announced last year that new legislation (with retroactive effect to 25 October 2017) will be introduced to amend the CIT fiscal unity regime.

Read more

01.06.2018 EU law
European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

Short Reads - On 31 May 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ernst & Young (EY) did not illegally implement the acquisition of KPMG Denmark (KPMG DK) before obtaining antitrust clearance.  Following the announcement of the transaction, KPMG DK terminated a cooperation agreement. According to the Court, that act cannot be regarded as a violation of the stand-still obligation since it did not contribute to the change of control of the target undertaking.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring