Directors’ liability
Being a director means making decisions, including when interests conflict or the company is under pressure. As long as things are going well, risks often remain in the background. But in the event of financial problems, disputes with creditors or bankruptcy, the question may arise whether a director is personally liable.
The law assumes that directors must have room to do business. Not every disappointing decision therefore leads to liability. Personal liability may only arise if a director can be seriously personally blamed.
When does directors’ liability arise?
Directors’ liability can arise in different ways. A director may be liable towards the company for improper management. In bankruptcy, the trustee also investigates whether there are grounds to hold directors liable for the deficit in the estate. For example, late filing of annual accounts or inadequate administration may play an important role.
Creditors can also hold a director personally liable. This may be the case, for example, if the director entered into obligations while knowing, or having reason to know, that the company would not be able to fulfil them. Special rules also apply in relation to the Tax Authorities and industry pension funds. In such situations, it is important to report inability to pay in a timely and correct manner.
Advice on directors’ liability
LVH Advocaten helps directors, companies and creditors with questions about directors’ liability. We assess the facts, map out the risks and advise on the best approach. We also guide directors through financially difficult periods, so that decisions are made carefully and liability risks are limited as much as possible. Because several lawyers at our firm have experience as trustees, we know how these situations are assessed in bankruptcy. Are you being held liable as a director, do you want to hold a director liable or are you uncertain about your position? Feel free to contact us. We will think along with you quickly and practically
Click below to learn more about how we can advise you on the following areas/topics:
SPECIALIZED LAWYERS
These are our lawyers who specialize in this area.
Bouwe Bos
Peter de Graaf
David Harreman
Anouk van Houdt
Jamie Janssen
Laura Kleijne
Jacolien Leuvenink
Gentia Niesert
Ben van Nieuwaal
Richard Ouwerling
Mike Pfeifer
Hans Rijntjes
Rob Steenhoek
Peter Verheijden
Carolina Corijn
Legal assistant
+31 (0)10 209 27 52
corijn@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Anna-Rhodé van den Dool
Ina Erwich
Sebastiaan Knook
Secretary
+31 (0)10 209 27 64
knook@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Irene Nuijen
Administrative Assistant
+31 (0)10 209 27 50
nuijen@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Carola Plomp
Secretary
+31 (0)10 209 27 75
plomp@lvh-advocaten.nl (more…)
Claudia Rondberg
Receptionist
+31 (0)10 209 27 77
rondberg@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Bram van Ruijven
Legal assistant aviation
+31 (0)10 209 27 64
vanruijven@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Maxime Visser
Manager backoffice
+31 (0)10 206 17 84
visser@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Sebastiaan Knook
Legal assistant aviation
+31 (0)10 209 27 52
knook@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Annique Wennekes
More about bankruptcy
The position of the SME entrepreneur as a creditor in a WHOA arrangement
On 1 January 2021, the Homologation Underhand Arrangement Act (WHOA) entered into force. This law introduced a new restructuring instrument. Its purpose is to prevent companies from being declared bankrupt while they are still (partially) viable. The statutory scheme includes a minimum protection for (smaller) SMEs. This is also referred to as the 20% rule. In this article I will explain the position of the SME as a creditor in a WHOA settlement.
Can a cash payment made after the bankruptcy date be reclaimed?
Recently, the Supreme Court issued an interesting judgment involving two important principles of bankruptcy law, namely the principle of fixation and the principle of paritas creditorum. The case concerned a situation in which, after the bankruptcy date, a cash payment was made from the bankrupt's bank account to a creditor. The central question was whether the trustee could recover the payment from the creditor. This article discusses the case, the relevant principles and the Supreme Court's opinion.
Surveillance in the (home) workplace: what is an employer allowed?
Previously we wrote an article about the rules for camera surveillance in the workplace. The need for employer monitoring exceeds - partly in view of the corona pandemic - the mere checking of the workplace with cameras. Employers also have a need to monitor employees' browsing habits, as well as the emails they send. And, of course, they want to prevent employees from spending hours Internet shopping and watching TV at the home workplace during working hours. But isn't monitoring this a violation of the employee's privacy, especially at the home workplace? In this article, we address that question. Is an employer allowed to use monitoring tools and what rules must the employer abide by during a monitoring. To form a clear picture, we will also discuss case law.
