The article touches on some interesting issues, including the remarks made in the explanatory notes to the draft proposal about the relevance of the business judgment rule phenomenon, as articulated and applied throughout the years in the US (especially in Delaware). As to the business judgment rule remarks, Bartman and Holtzer are sceptical. They aren't the first ones, as they were preceded by Gerard van Solinge (whose remarks were discussed and rebutted here and here) and Fons Leijten (ditto here). So it's a third attempt really.
As to this issue, Bartman and Holtzer don't bring new arguments to the fore. A pity, but nothing new on that front really (see the above links). They do include this passage in their writings.
Eind oktober vorig jaar stuurde de Minister van Justitie een voorontwerp van wet tot aanpassing van het enquêterecht (hierna: ‘het Voorontwerp’) aan verscheidene instanties ter consultatie. Het Voorontwerp volgt op een aantal onderdelen de aanbevelingen van de SER, zoals neergelegd in zijn advies van 15 februari 2008 over Evenwichtig Ondernemingsbestuur (hierna: ‘het SER-advies’).2 Het meest ingrijpende voorstel van de SER, namelijk de introductie van een enquêteprocedure in twee feitelijke instanties met schorsende werking van het hoger beroep, wordt door de minister echter nadrukkelijk verworpen omwille van (behoud van) de snelheid van het geding.3 Ook het andere unaniem gedragen SER-voorstel, namelijk de introductie van de Amerikaanse business judgment rule in het enquêterecht, wijst de minister af.4 Wel meent hij dat in de motivering tot het treffen van voorlopige voorzieningen ‘de aandachtspunten die uit de Amerikaanse jurisprudentie naar voren komen, daarbij ook in het Nederlandse kader behulpzaam (kunnen) zijn.’5 Dit lijkt ons echter eerder een aardige persoonlijke geste te zijn naar Assink, die de introductie van de business judgment rule in het Nederlandse recht met vuur bepleit,6 dan een reële en dwingende verschuiving in het toetsingskader van de Ondernemingskamer. 7 Het siert de Nederlandse rechter immers altijd om oog te hebben voor de ontwikkelingen in het buitenland. Het is de vraag of een dergelijke persoonlijke geste (van drie pagina’s!) wel zou passen in de toelichting bij het officiële wetsvoorstel. Onze bezwaren tegen de twee genoemde SER-voorstellen hebben wij eerder uiteengezet.8 Wij volstaan daarom met de opmerking dat wij ons goed kunnen vinden in de opvattingen van de minister in dit opzicht.
--------
2. SER-advies Evenwichtig Ondernemingsbestuur, nr. 08/01. Zie hierover ons artikel ‘Evenwichtig ondernemingsbestuur in de polder’, TvOB 2008-3, p. 57-65, alsmede het themanummer Ondernemingsrecht 2008, 64 (afl. 6), met bijdragen van P.A.M. Witteveen, S.J.H.M. Berendsen, W.A. Westenbroek en Bastiaan F. Assink.
3. Toelichting Voorontwerp, p. 23.
4. De raadgevende leden van de voorbereidende SER-commissie, Eumedion en de VEB, verklaarden zich overigens geen voorstander van introductie van de business judgment rule in het Nederlandse vennootschapsrecht.
5. Toelichting Voorontwerp, p. 21.
6. Zie laatstelijk zijn preadvies voor de Vereeniging ‘Handelsrecht’ 2009, p. 131. Hierover ook Daniella A.M.H.W. Strik in haar preadvies op p. 263. Zie ook L. Timmerman, ‘Grondslagen van geldend ondernemingsrecht’, Ondernemingsrecht 2009, 2 (afl. 1), p. 4 (p. 11, voetnoot 69).
7. Idem G. van Solinge, ‘Naar een evenwichtig enquêterecht’, WPNR 2010/6825.
8. TvOB 2008-3, p. 63.
Hmm, what to think of this? Some thoughts.
- Read fairly, the explanatory notes basically suggest that, when the Enterprise Chamber is asked to rule whether 'well founded reasons to doubt the correctness of the company's policy' (gegronde redenen om aan een juist beleid te twijfelen) or 'obvious mismanagement' (wanbeleid) exist as to matters that fall in the business judgment realm, the focus points applied in US case law could be helpful in this respect in the Dutch setting (thereby referring to the Delaware business judgment rule). This suggestion was inspired by a 2008 report from the Dutch Social-Economic Council, arguing for introduction of a Dutch business judgment rule in inquiry proceedings. Although the explanatory notes do not embrace the business judgment doctrine as such with so many words, I find it hard to fathom - in view of what the notes do say - how they could be interpreted in a realistic way to mean that the Enterprise Chamber is barred from finding inspiration for finetuning its review model in Delaware corporate case law (i.e., the business judgment rule). In addition, the explanatory notes lay-out the groundwork for a Dutch business judgment rule in the section covering the proper scope of review by the Enterprise Chamber, with a proper heavy emphasis on the key factor of conflict of interests. This is all meaningful stuff, not just some page-filling scribblings without substance written to say at least something on the subject and get on with other more important things as soon as possible. It is also clear that the explanatory notes do not embrace the SER's suggestion to introduce a Dutch business judgment rule in the context of provisional measures (section 2:349a(2) DCC). That approach is the right one, as I explained in Ondernemingsrecht 2008-6, no. 66, p. 234-235.
- In view of this, Bartman and Holtzer are flat-out wrong where they write that the minister is of the opinion that the aforementioned focus points could be helpful in the provisional measure context. They are also wrong where they imply that, besides that, the minister doesn't really want to do anything with elements of the business judgment rule phenomenon in the right of inquiry (the scribbling scenario, so to speak). On the contrary, I would think: the gist of the explanatory notes is the opposite of what they are implying (that the whole business judgment rule suggestion by the SER has gone nowhere in the explanatory notes). Bartman and Holtzer conclude by saying that, in their reading of the explanatory notes, the three pages spent by the minister on the business judgment rule - culminating in the part on focus points - are basically nothing more than a personal gesture to me, an outspoken proponent of a Dutch business judgment rule (in inquiry proceedings and in director liability proceedings). How flattering this may seem (at least to some), this suggestion is just plain silly, or in terms of the business judgment rule: irrational. The minister isn't in the business of spending pages in legislation documents just to keep some dude with an opinion on point happy. I guess Bartman and Holtzer don't think this is a serious topic that deserves serious attention in the legislation process; wrongly, if only because the SER has argued so forcefully to do something with the business judgment rule phenomenon in inquiry proceedings.
So, another missed opportunity for meaningful discussion I'm afraid. Three times isn't always lucky.
UPDATE
For an instructive summary review of how the business judgment rule was applied in recent Delaware case law (also highlighted here), go here. Money quote:
Reaffirmation of the BJR
Dow is most significant for its reiteration of the long-held principle of Delaware law that the business judgment rule protects the business decisions of boards, so long as those decisions are taken in good faith by disinterested directors. Neither the stakes of a decision nor its appearance in hindsight has any bearing on the protections of the business judgment rule. That said, directors should be sure that they are acting on a fully informed basis before they proceed with any decision.
In the volatile conditions of the current economic environment, directors facing difficult decisions and uncertain risks can act with confidence that their business judgment cannot be challenged simply because of the failure of a venture or the subsequent consequences of such failure to the company. The business judgment rule long has been a bulwark against shareholder attempts to micromanage or second-guess the oversight of the board of directors in business decisions, and in Dow it has been fortified once again.
Comments