Collective redress in the Netherlands

1. Collectiveredress in the Netherlands Flip Wijers - 13 November 2012

2. Collective litigation • A foundation or associationcaninitiatecollective litigation • Existence of similarintereststhat the plaintiffactivelyaimstoprotect; • No extensivedescription of the ‘class’ is required; • No prior decisionsregarding the illigality of the defendants actions is required; • Scope: injunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefavailable, no claim formonetarydamages; • Binding effect is limited; • Alternativeinstruments of collectiveredress • Alternativeinstruments are available but oftennot practical; • Costs of collective litigation • Notnecessarily (much) more expensivethanindividual litigation; • Loser pays (a little), no contingency fee schemeallowed; • Prejudicialrequeststo Dutch Supreme Court

3. Collective Settlements - I • Dutch Act on the CollectiveSettlement of Mass Claims • Amsterdam Court of Appeal candeclare a settlement binding on a class, with a subsequentopt-out possibilityforinjuredparties; • Four stages: settlement agreement, petition, opt out period, distribution of funds; • The Court will test: • Whether the group of injuredparties is sufficientlysustantiveandidentifiable; • The representativity of the foundation or association; • Whethernotificationrequirements have been met; • The reasonableness of the settlement;

4. Collective Settlements - II • Opt out possibility • Minimum period of threemonths; • Settlement agreement mayprovidethatiftoomanyinjuredpartiesopt out, the defendantcanwithdrawfrom the settlement; • Jurisdictionandnotification in internationalsettlements • Case law shows that the tresholdto accept jurisdiction is low; • Notification requirementsalignwithapplicabletreatiesandconventions; • Extraterritorial effect • Brussels I Regulationwill assist in internationalenforcement; • Interactionwith US settlements post Morrison vs. NAB • ‘Foreignpurchasers’ are bannedfrom US class actions. The Netherlands is analternativeforcertification of class action settlements.