Articles

Bonus Prohibition Bill-Update

Bonus Prohibition Bill-Update

Bonus Prohibition Bill-Update

17.02.2012 NL law

1.  Bonus Prohibition Bill - Update

On Tuesday 14 February 2012, the Lower House (Tweede Kamer) adopted the Bill on the limitation of liability of the DNB and the AFM and the introduction of a bonus prohibition for State supported institutions, including several amendments.

Current status
The modified Bill in which the adopted amendments have been incorporated will now be sent to the Senate (Eerste Kamer). The date on which the Bill will enter into force is not yet known, but this is expected to happen shortly.

Key changes to the Bill
On 6 and 7 February 2012, six amendments have been discussed in the Lower House. As a result of the adoption of the amendments the Bill now has a wider scope. Please click here to view the modified Bill including the explanatory notes to the amendments.
 
Managing directors or policymakers
One amendment extended the scope of the Bill to persons who determine the day-to-day policy (dagelijks beleidsbepalers) of the financial institution instead of limiting it to formal board members (bestuurders) only. This amendment however only applies to financial institutions that received or will receive state support after 7 February 2012. For financial institutions that received state support prior to this date the prohibition only applies to 'managing directors' instead of 'policy makers'.

State participations
The scope of the bonus prohibition is also extended to financial institutions that do not receive state support within the meaning of section 107 of the EU Treaty, but which are directly or indirectly held by the Dutch State.

20 percent increase
Discussions have taken place on the question whether a one-time increase of the fixed salary of managing directors should be allowed. The Bill now provides for a possibility of a maximum increase of the fixed salary of 20 percent on an individual basis during the period as from 26 October 2011 up to the date the Bill becomes law, provided that this increase is subject to all other restrictions that may apply with respect to executive compensation. During the debate, the Minister has mentioned that the maximum increase is appropriate and fits in the context of the Bill.

We also refer to our December alert in relation to the extension of the scope of the Bill to Dutch subsidiaries of foreign financial institutions that have received state support within the meaning of section 107 of the EU Treaty.

For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Obviously, we shall keep you posted of any relevant developments.

Team

Related news

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Short Reads - Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

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