Search for:
Author

Valerie van den Berg

Browsing
Valérie van den Berg serves as counsel in Baker McKenzie's Amsterdam office. She is seasoned in complex domestic and cross-border commercial disputes as well as in corporate litigation. She also has broad experience in restructuring work. Valérie advises and represents a wide range of corporate clients and financial institutions.

On 24 May 2022, the Dutch Supreme Court passed judgment between, on one hand, the Royal Dutch Shell PLC and 15 of Shell’s in-house lawyers (“Shell”), and on the other hand, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service.1 The Supreme Court held that both Shell’s and the Public Prosecution Service’s complaints were inadmissible because the decision of the court of first instance should be considered as an ‘interim decision’ (in Dutch: ‘tussenbeschikking’), and interim decisions are not open to cassation. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to provide some insights in relation to the scope and application of legal professional privilege of in-house lawyers by way of obiter dictum.

Through the EU Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency of 20 June 2019 (EUR 2019/1023, “Directive”), the European Union has imposed an obligation on its member states to offer a more attractive and flexible restructuring scheme in their respective local law. The initial deadline to do so had been 17 July 2021. Only a handful of countries (most notably Germany and The Netherlands) had implemented the Directive within the initial deadline, whilst the other countries made use of the possibility to ask for a one year extension.

The mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the UK and the Netherlands used to be governed by the Brussels Recast Regulation. Today, post-Brexit, it is not an easy task to determine which rules apply. The key issue is whether the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters dated 17 November 196711 revived. Nonetheless, a notable exception to the current uncertainty exists with respect to judgments that fall within the scope of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements dated 30 June 20052.