DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY REVISITED
People keep asking questions about this topic
Generally, in Curaçao (as well as in Aruba, St. Maarten and the BES islands) liability may arise in the event a managing director is found to be seriously negligent (‘hem een ernstig verwijt kan worden gemaakt’) in fulfilling his tasks as member of the management board of a legal entity (NV, BV, foundation or association).
Section 2:8 subsection 3 of the Curaçao Civil Code (‘CCC‘) provides that in performing its duties the management board is focused on the interest of the legal entity and its associated business operations, insofar as they exist. This …
Read the rest »
INSOLVENCY AND LIABILITY
Not (or late) filing for bankruptcy
In Curaçao, there is no statutory obligation for managing directors of a company to file for the bankruptcy of the corporation. Therefore, managing directors are not responsible to the creditors for damages sustained by them as a result of any ‘late’ filing for bankruptcy. There is no such obligation for shareholders of a corporation either.
However, creditors of the corporation may hold a director liable on the basis of tort if he entered into a transaction on behalf of the corporation while he knew, or should reasonably have known, that the corporation would not …
Read the rest »
LEGAL ACTION AGAINST A CURACAO TRUSTEE
Who can bring an action?
If the trust assets have been prejudiced, the action can be brought by any co-trustee. Unless provided for to the contrary in the trust deed the action can also be brought by a protector or beneficiary on the understanding that the compensation is paid as soon as possible to a Trustee not being the Trustee who violated his duties (Section 3:143 subsection 4 Curacao Civil Code {‘CCC’}). The question is to whom the protector has to pay the compensation if there is no co-trustee. This question is not answered in legislation, but in practice in …
Read the rest »
TYPES OF LIABILITY IN CURACAO
A three-part distinction
With regard to liability a three-part distinction can be made. The first distinction relates to the basis of the liability: liability pursuant to a contractual relationship (the attributable failure in this respect) and liability pursuant to a wrongful act.
Another distinction relates to the personal liability (thus for the party’s own actions or omissions) and vicarious and/or strict liability: liability for or the acts and omissions of others (vicarious liability) or liability for certain things that happen (strict liability).
For example, employers can be held vicariously liable for certain actions of their employees. According to the Curacao …
Read the rest »
PROPOSED REVIEW DUTCH CARIBBEAN LEGISLATION ON DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY IN BANKRUPTCY
Defects detected in the annual accounts drawn up may be relevant
Earlier in 2010, a draft bill was proposed to amend the Corporate Code (Book 2 Civil Code) of Curacao, St. Maarten, Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (which formerly constituted the Netherlands Antilles). Hopefully, the Bill comes into force in 2011. Among other things, the provisions with regard to Managing Director’s liability have been improved.
In the event of the bankruptcy of the legal entity each Managing Director is jointly and severally liable to the estate for the deficit being the amount of the debts insofar as they cannot be …
Read the rest »
DIRECTORS’ LIABILITY IN THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN
Personal and several liability
The members of the Board of Directors are personally and severally liable towards the NV (or BV, as the case may be) for any loss caused by the improper performance of duties. Each member of the Board who proves that he cannot be blamed for such improper performance and that the activities concerned fall outside the scope of activities addressed to him, and that he has not been negligent in taking steps to avert the related consequences, is not liable (Article 2:14 Section 4 Netherlands Antilles Civil Code; NACC). Therefore, a division of tasks among such …
Read the rest »
INADEQUATE CAPITALIZATION OF AN ARUBAN COMPANY
Liability for thin-capitalization?
In terms of ‘piercing the corporate veil’, thin or inadequate capitalization usually means capitalization that is not in proportion to the nature of the risks the business of the corporation necessarily entails; in other words it is based on likely economic needs rather than legal requirements.
Shareholders of a company in Aruba are under an obligation to pay to the company what is due with respect to the shares, i.e. the shareholder’s capital contribution, and such contribution may not be withdrawn without due process. This is the only financial obligation of a shareholder towards the company, unless …
Read the rest »
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN ARUBA
Ignoring the legal personality of a company
A shareholder is not personally liable for acts performed in the name of the company and is not liable to contribute to losses of the company in excess of the amount which he must pay to the company as contribution for his shares. There is therefore a legal separation between the assets and liabilities of the company and those of the shareholder.
Piercing the corporate veil in its purest form means making a shareholder responsible for the actions of the company. In essence this means ignoring the separate legal identity of the company. …
Read the rest »
AMSTERDAM COURT OF APPEAL ON LIABILITY OF TRUST DIRECTORS
Trust directors not treated differently from regular directors
The board of directors of an NV or BV may contractually agree to a limitation of its powers to manage the company. Such arrangements are typical for trust offices engaged by a foreign ultimate beneficiary to render services to ‘his’ company, i.e. the client of a trust office. In principle, any contract a board of directors enters into binds the board and thereby limits its power. However, notwithstanding such a contract, it is still the board of directors that is in charge of managing the affairs of the company.
A distinction should …
Read the rest »
WHAT DAMAGES ARE RECOVERABLE UNDER ARUBAN LAW? (II)
Case law
The Supreme Court in its case law has held that relatives of a deceased person are only entitled to sue for damages against the person liable for his or her death, if and to the extent that their death has left them in need. The extent of need is measured by the standard of living of the surviving relatives during the life of the deceased. See, for example, Supreme Court dated December 13, 1985 and Supreme Court dated February 28, 1986. This rule may be considered one of the fundamental principles and values of the Aruban legal system, …
Read the rest »
WHAT DAMAGES ARE RECOVERABLE UNDER ARUBAN LAW? (I)
Nature and extent determined by the Civil Code
When considering the nature and extent of damages that are recoverable under Aruban law, the point of departure is Book 6, Title 1 (Obligations in General), Section 10 (Legal Obligations to Make Reparation of Damage), Article 95 of the Aruban Civil Code which states: ‘the damage which must be repaired pursuant to a legal obligation to make reparation consists of material damage and other harm (i.e., immaterial damage), the latter to the extent that the law grants a right to reparation thereof’.
Pursuant to Article 96, Paragraph 1, material damage comprises both …
Read the rest »
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN
Ignoring the legal personality of a company
A shareholder is not personally liable for acts performed in the name of the company and is not liable to contribute to losses of the company in excess of the amount which he must pay to the company as contribution for his shares. There is therefore a legal separation between the assets and liabilities of the company and those of the shareholder.
Piercing the corporate veil in its purest form means making a shareholder responsible for the actions of the company. In essence this means ignoring the separate legal identity of the company. …
Read the rest »