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

18.09.2019 NL law
Tax Alert: The Netherlands' Budget Day 2019: the impact of the Dutch 2020 Tax Package on international businesses

Short Reads - On Tuesday 17 September 2019 (Prinsjesdag) the Dutch Ministry of Finance published the 2020 Tax Package (Belastingpakket) including the 2020 Tax Plan (Belastingplan), i.e. a set of legislative proposals amending the national tax laws for the upcoming years. Some of the proposals may be of great relevance to international businesses.

Read more

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

Read more

18.09.2019 NL law
AFM en accountants: over wortel en stok (met roeptoeter)

Articles - Sinds de inwerkingtreding van de Wet toezicht accountantsorgansaties (Wta) houdt de AFM toezicht op accountsorganisaties en de bij die organisaties werkzame individuele accountants. Voor dit toezicht heeft de wetgever de AFM ruimschoots voorzien van stokken (en van een enkele wortel). 

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring