Short Reads

Interruption of statutory limitation by way of written notice: a matter of interpretation

Interruption of statutory limitation by way of written notice: a matter of interpretation

Interruption of statutory limitation by way of written notice: a matter of interpretation

02.12.2015 NL law

In judgment of 18 September 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2741, the Dutch Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, in which it was held that a letter by US counsel for the claimant to US counsel for the defendant did not contain an “unequivocal reservation of rights” and therefore did not interrupt the Dutch statute of limitation. 

According to the Supreme Court, the courts should not only have looked at the wording of the letter, but also to the context within which the letter was sent and the other circumstances of the case (including subsequent communications between the claimant and the defendant).

International Strategies Group (“ISG“), based in the Virgin Islands, sued Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS“) as the legal successor of ABN Amro Bank (“ABN Amro“). ISG fell victim to a multi-million dollar fraud and lost all of the funds that it had deposited into accounts maintained at ABN Amro. According to ISG, if ABN Amro had been more prudent its funds would not have disappeared. After an initial attempt to pursue its claims in the United States, in 2007 ISG initiated proceedings before the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, claiming damages upward of USD 14 million.

Both the District Court and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal dismissed the action, holding that ISG’s claims had become time barred. Under Dutch law, a claim for damages expires five years after the claimant is able to bring the claim. According to Article 3:317(1) Dutch Civil Code, this statutory limitation period is interrupted if the claimant sends the defendant a written notice in which he or she unequivocally reserves the right to damages.

ISG argued that the limitation period was successfully interrupted on 8 August 2003, when its counsel in the United States sent a letter the ABN Amro’s U.S. counsel, stating:

We have been retained by International Strategies Group to (…) assess additional actions which may be required to best serve the interests of our clients in accomplishing a full disclosure concerning the unusual circumstances surrounding funds deposited by them into accounts maintained at ABN Amro. (…)

Various questions have arisen which I am anxious to review with you as counsel to ABN Amro. Most curious are the mysterious details concerning the (…) payment of $ 400,000 to ABN Amro employee (…) out of our client’s funds on deposit in an account at ABN Amro. Explanations which I have reviewed are incomplete and insufficient at best.

It would appear that ABN Amro may be liable for the regrettable ‘disappearance’ of the entire syndicated $24,000,000 (…)

I’ve been trying cases involving commercial disputes for over thirty years and I have become convinced that litigation is the least efficient and most uncivilized method of dispute resolution known to man. That said, if you’re able to gather some facts which may shed some light on these issues, I would welcome a visit to New York and a chat all under the ‘cloak’ of Rule 408.

I would also think it appropriate to put ABN Amro carriers on notice of these potential claims.

I look forward to hearing from you

Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the letter did not contain an “unequivocal” reservation of a claim.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision.

Referring to earlier case law, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is a matter of interpretation whether a notice letter contains a reservation of rights that is sufficiently “unequivocal” to interrupt the statute of limitations. When interpreting the letter, the courts should look at its wording, the context within which the letter was sent and the other circumstances of the case (including subsequent communications between the claimant and the defendant).

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had failed properly to substantiate its view that the letter of 8 August 2003 did not contain a sufficiently unequivocal reservation of rights, considering that the letter:

  • was sent by ISG’s outside counsel to ABN Amro’s outside counsel;
  • specifically states “that ABN Amro may be liable for the regrettable ‘disappearance’ of the entire syndicated $ 24,000,000”;
  • includes references to the possibility of litigation between the parties; and
  • suggests that it would be “appropriate to put ABN Amro carriers on notice of these potential claims”;
  • The case was referred to the Court of Appeal of The Hague for further review.

This decision is by-and-large in line with earlier case law of the Supreme Court. Still, it is surprising to see that the Supreme Court attaches specific importance to the fact that the notice letter had been sent by ISG’s outside counsel to ABN Amro’s outside counsel. For the Court of Appeal, the fact that the letter was sent between counsels militated against holding that the letter served to interrupt the statute of limitations. In Dutch legal practice it is generally accepted that notice letters may be sent directly to the opposite party – and not only to their counsel – if they serve to interrupt a limitation period (and some would even recommend doing so). Against that background, it is not immediately clear why the fact that the letter was sent between outside counsels would benefit ISG’s position.

Arguably, however, the proper background against which the letter ought to be interpreted, is American legal practice (cf. Supreme Court 17 February 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AU9717 (Royal & Sun Alliance / Universal Pictures)). In the U.S. context in which ISG’s counsel sent his letter to ABN Amro’s counsel, would that letter normally be interpreted as a sufficiently clear signal that ISG is reserving its right to damages? Does it matter that in most common law systems one cannot interrupt – or ‘toll’ – a statute of limitations by sending a notice letter? These and similar questions are not addressed by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the U.S. context is missing entirely from the Supreme Court’s analysis.

Whatever one’s view on this Supreme Court decision, in matters governed by Dutch law we continue to recommend the inclusion of an express and unequivocal reservation of one’s rights and defences in any notice letter to the opposite party.

The post Interruption of statutory limitation by way of written notice: a matter of interpretation is a post of Stibbeblog.nl.

Team

Related news

07.08.2018 NL law
Legislative proposal to protect trade secrets: update

Short Reads - On 5 July 2016, the EU Trade Secrets Directive came into effect (Directive 2016/943/EU). The directive intends to harmonise rules regarding the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) across all EU member states. As the directive is not directly applicable in the member states, each member state must enact national implementing legislation.

Read more

07.08.2018 NL law
Protection of listed companies against unsolicited takeovers, prevention of unwanted influences in the telecoms sector and protection of other vital sectors: latest developments

Short Reads - Following a recent series of (attempted) unsolicited takeovers by foreign bidders of Dutch listed companies, such as PostNL, Unilever and AkzoNobel, the protection of companies against unsolicited takeovers and the protection of vital sectors have received more attention in both the Netherlands and Europe.

Read more

31.07.2018 NL law
Can an SPV be misled before it exists?

Articles - Transactions are regularly structured through special purpose vehicles (SPVs). An SPV is often established at the end of the negotiations, just before signing the agreement. The other party to the agreement provides information and raises certain expectations during the negotiations. The individuals negotiating for the SPV do not necessarily become officers of the SPV once it is established.

Read more

07.08.2018 NL law
Boskalis v. Fugro: scope of a shareholder's right to put items on the agenda

Short Reads - Under Dutch law (section 114a of book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code), shareholders have the right to put items on the agenda of the general meeting. The question arises as to whether shareholders also have the right to force an (informal) vote in the general meeting on subjects which are not within their powers. A judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 20 April 2018 between Boskalis and Fugro focused on this question.

Read more

12.07.2018 NL law
Voortgang wetsvoorstel Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen

Short Reads - Op 5 juli 2016 is de Richtlijn bedrijfsgeheimen (2016/943/EU) in werking getreden. De richtlijn heeft tot doel de regels inzake bescherming van niet-openbaar gemaakte knowhow en bedrijfsinformatie (bedrijfsgeheimen) in de EU lidstaten te harmoniseren. De richtlijn moest voor 9 juni 2018 geïmplementeerd zijn in de Nederlandse wet- en regelgeving. Nederland heeft deze termijn niet gehaald.

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