We are Stibbe Class Actions and Group Actions specialists

We have proven expertise in resolving class and group actions and the associated special challenges they create, even across multiple jurisdictions.

Class Actions and Group Actions

We have played a major role in some of the largest class actions and group actions in the Benelux, drawing on expertise from across the firm to deliver the most effective results for our clients.

Handling matters across a broad range of sectors including financial institutions, securities, funds, large industries and healthcare, our experts integrate regulatory knowledge with sector expertise to create strategically robust solutions.

As the rules for collective redress are constantly changing, we guide clients through every stage. When handling complex proceedings regarding private enforcement of cartel and competition law infringements, we work in close collaboration with lawyers in our EU competition law practice group. This cohesive structure provides the most cost-effective and efficient way of working.

Over the years our litigation practice group has successfully handled multi-party and multi-jurisdictional litigation, before the civil, administrative and criminal courts. In all cases, our objective is to resolve the class or group action as efficiently as possible, aiming to minimise its impact on the rest of the business.

Reinforcing our practical expertise, our partners also lecture on collective redress and hold various publications on class actions and group actions.


Subscribe to newsletter

Experience

Other specialists

Related news

16.01.2018 NL law
Overview of Legislative Proposal on Collective Action (NL) - As amended by the Amendment Bill of 11 January 2018

Articles - In the Netherlands, it is possible for a representative entity to bring a "collective action" on an "opt-out basis" under article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (the "DCC"). However, under the current provisions in Dutch law, the representative entity is not entitled to claim monetary damages. This limitation is likely to be removed in the not too distant future.

Read more

19.10.2017 NL law
Annotatie onder Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden - 14-02-2017

Articles - Nu de verkoop van de inventaris meer dan een jaar voor het faillissement heeft plaatsgevonden, is het bewijsvermoeden van art. 43 Fw niet van toepassing. De stelplicht en de bewijslast ten aanzien van het paulianeus handelen rusten dan ook op de curator. De enkele omstandigheid dat het niet goed ging met de onderneming, betekent nog niet dat op dat moment te voorzien was dat een faillissement onafwendbaar was.

Read more

11.01.2018 NL law
Witness examination and the withdrawal of a judge

Short Reads - In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a judge is allowed to critically interrogate a witness and remind a witness of his oath. Such action is not an indication that a judge is not impartial or independent.

Read more

02.10.2017 NL law
Judgement beyond the ambit of the legal dispute

Short Reads - In its judgment of 14 July 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1357 the Supreme Court decided that the pleadings did not provide sufficient basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal that the contractor's claim was also based on joint and several liability of the alleged client. Moreover, the pleadings provided no evidence that the alleged client acknowledged that the contractor considered the alleged client jointly and severally liable.

Read more

10.01.2018 NL law
Fire, furniture and strict liability for buildings used for business

Short Reads - Persons using a building in the course of running a business might be liable for damage caused by a defect in the building on the basis of strict liability. Such liability exists if there is a link between the origin of the defect and the running of the business. In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court clarified how to ascertain whether there is such a link.

Read more

22.09.2017 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court ruled on the time limit under which appeals must be brought

Short Reads - On 1 September 2017, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the appeal period ends three months after the day on which the court has given its judgment, at the end of the day with the same number as the day on which the judgment was given (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2225). However, when the appeal period of three months expires in a month that does not have a day with the same number due to the fact that it is shorter, the appeal period ends on the final day of that month. Therefore, it is important to be aware that the appeal period relating to judgments given on certain specific days might end earlier than expected.

Read more

05.07.2017 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court confirms case law on causation: roundup of two recent cases (PART I)

Short Reads - In its decisions of 2 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1008) and 9 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1053), the Dutch Supreme Court reconfirmed its case law on causation, the condicio sine qua non test and the so-called "reversal" rule in the law of evidence pertaining to this test. Although strictly speaking, these decisions might not bring much news, they show that carrying out the condicio sine qua non test is not always straightforward. In addition, these decisions show the importance of clearly keeping in mind the facts and norms constituting the unlawfulness or non-performance at hand.

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 and Cookie Policy