A shareholder dispute in a Dutch BV is settled along four routes: the shareholders agreement and the articles of association, negotiation or mediation, the statutory dispute rules for a forced buy-out or a forced exit, and inquiry proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer). Since 1 January 2025 the Enterprise Chamber hears both the statutory dispute rules and the inquiry, which has made the choice between those routes more a matter of strategy than of forum.
Which route fits depends on the facts, on what the contractual documents say and on whether the working relationship can still be repaired. Shareholder disputes seldom start with an argument; they start with a pattern of decisions taken without consultation, information that is no longer shared, or value quietly moving to a company controlled by the majority. The legal position of a minority holder weakens as that pattern continues, because each further decision becomes harder to unwind.
This article sets out each route, the statutory basis and the threshold that has to be met. For the underlying rules in more depth, including squeeze-out, forced withdrawal and inquiry proceedings, see our guide to a shareholder dispute in a Dutch BV, and our overview of Dutch corporate law.
The standard that applies between shareholders
Article 2:8 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) requires the company, its directors, its supervisory directors and its shareholders to conduct themselves towards one another in accordance with reasonableness and fairness. That is not a background principle. It is the standard against which information duties, the calling and conduct of general meetings, and the exercise of voting power by a majority are measured, and it is the reason a majority cannot simply do as it pleases because it holds the votes.
A resolution taken in breach of that standard, or in breach of a provision on the formation of resolutions, is voidable under Article 2:15 DCC. That claim goes to the ordinary district court, not to the Enterprise Chamber, and it is subject to a limitation period of one year from the day the resolution became known to the claimant. A resolution taken in breach of a rule that the law makes a nullity, such as a decision by a body that lacked the power to take it, is void under Article 2:14 DCC.
Start with the shareholders agreement and the articles
Before any step is taken, the shareholders agreement and the articles of association have to be read against the facts. Four clauses usually decide the shape of the conflict. A dispute resolution clause may oblige the parties to attempt mediation or arbitration before a court can be approached, and ignoring it can cost a claimant its case on admissibility. A deadlock clause governs what happens when the votes are tied and the company can no longer take decisions. Put and call options give a party the right to sell or to buy, often at a price fixed by an independent valuer. Information rights determine what the shareholder is entitled to see beyond the annual accounts.
Those contractual rights matter because they usually go further than the statutory minimum. A shareholder who is not a director has no general right of access to the administration of the company under Dutch law; what such a shareholder can demand outside the general meeting normally follows from the agreement, from the articles, or from Article 2:8 DCC applied to the circumstances. Establishing that basis precisely is often what turns a refusal into compliance without proceedings.
Negotiation and mediation
Where the working relationship can still be repaired, a negotiated settlement remains the fastest route and the only one that can produce an outcome a court cannot impose. A revised shareholding structure, a buy-out with an earn-out, a new governance arrangement or agreed reporting obligations are all matters for the parties, not for a judge who is confined to the remedies the law allows.
Mediation is not suitable in every case. Where information that is legally or contractually due is withheld, where assets are being moved out of the company, or where earlier agreements have repeatedly not been honoured, a voluntary process mostly buys the other side time. In those situations the Enterprise Chamber is not a last resort but the right first instrument, because it is the only forum that can intervene before the merits have been decided.
The statutory dispute rules: forced buy-out and forced exit
The statutory dispute rules in Articles 2:335 to 2:343c DCC provide two remedies. A shareholder whose conduct harms the interest of the company to such an extent that its continued membership can no longer reasonably be tolerated may be compelled to transfer its shares under Article 2:336a DCC. A shareholder whose rights or interests are so prejudiced by the conduct of one or more co-shareholders that its continued membership can no longer reasonably be required may compel those co-shareholders to take over its shares under Article 2:343 DCC.
The Wagevoe, in force since 1 January 2025, changed how these claims are brought. Both are now petition proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber rather than writ proceedings before the district court, they are heard in a single factual instance with only cassation to the Supreme Court open afterwards, and they can be combined with an inquiry request. That removed the principal objection to the old regime, which was that a buy-out could take years through three instances while the company continued to deteriorate.
Valuation remains the hard part. The court appoints one or more experts to value the shares unless the parties agree otherwise, and the price is fixed as at a date the court determines. Where the conduct complained of has itself depressed the value, the court may take that into account, which is why documenting the conduct and its effect on the figures is worth as much as the legal argument.
Inquiry proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber
The Enterprise Chamber is a specialised division of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal that hears corporate disputes. In an inquiry it examines whether there are grounds to doubt the policy or the conduct of affairs within the company, and if so it may order an investigation. Article 2:350(1) DCC sets the test: the request is granted only if it appears that there are well-founded reasons to doubt a proper policy or a proper course of affairs.
The Enterprise Chamber grants the request only when it appears that there are well-founded reasons to doubt proper policy or a proper course of affairs.
Article 2:350(1) DCC
The proceedings run in two phases. The first ends with the appointment of an investigator and a report; the second, on a further request, is where the Enterprise Chamber may find mismanagement and impose the remedies listed exhaustively in Article 2:356 DCC, such as suspending or annulling a resolution, suspending or dismissing a director, appointing a temporary director or transferring shares by way of administration. A transfer by way of administration is a temporary arrangement, not a change of ownership.
Two admissibility points decide many cases before the merits are reached. Under Article 2:349 DCC the objections must first have been raised with the board and, where there is one, the supervisory board, with a reasonable period to respond. And under Article 2:346 DCC a shareholder qualifies to file the request if it holds at least one tenth of the issued capital or shares with a nominal value of at least 225,000 euro, or such lower amount as the articles provide. For companies whose issued capital exceeds 22.5 million euro the threshold is one hundredth of the issued capital, or, for listed companies, a market value of at least 20 million euro. The requirement is alternative, not cumulative, and shareholders may add their holdings together to reach it.
For a fuller treatment of the forum itself, its composition and how a request is prepared, see our article on the Enterprise Chamber in the Netherlands.
Immediate provisions when value is at risk
The instrument that makes the Enterprise Chamber distinctive is the immediate provision under Article 2:349a DCC. On a request in connection with an inquiry, and in any state of the proceedings, the Enterprise Chamber may make such a provision if the position of the company or the interest of the investigation requires it. It can appoint a temporary director with a casting vote, suspend a director, or place shares under administration so that voting power is neutralised while the facts are established.
There is no fixed statutory deadline for such a request, but it is dealt with quickly and the hearing is usually listed within weeks. That speed is the reason an immediate provision is often the first step where assets are being moved, bank access is being blocked, or a general meeting is about to take a decision that cannot be reversed. It is also a demanding step, because the request has to make the underlying doubts concrete on documents rather than on impressions.
Holding a director personally liable
Where a director has caused loss to the company, Article 2:9 DCC provides for internal liability, but only where the director can be seriously blamed for the improper performance of its duties. That is a high threshold, and it is assessed on all the circumstances, including the nature of the activities, the risks involved and the information available at the time. Liability towards a shareholder or a third party personally runs through the general rule on tort in Article 6:162 DCC, and there too a serious personal reproach is normally required.
Conflicts of interest deserve separate attention because they arise so often in these disputes. Under Article 2:239(6) DCC a director of a BV who has a direct or indirect personal interest conflicting with the interest of the company may not take part in the deliberation and decision-making. If as a result no resolution can be taken by the board, the decision falls to the supervisory board or, in its absence, to the general meeting. A resolution taken in breach of that rule is exposed to annulment under Article 2:15 DCC.
Choosing a route
Four questions usually settle the choice. Can the working relationship still be repaired, in which case mediation is worth the attempt and costs little time. Is value being lost right now, in which case an immediate provision comes before anything else. Is the aim to end the relationship or to correct it, because a forced exit under Article 2:343 DCC answers the first and an inquiry answers the second. And what does the shareholders agreement say, since a dispute resolution clause may dictate the order of steps and the articles may set a lower qualification threshold than the law.
The answers are rarely exclusive. An inquiry request and an annulment claim can run alongside each other, and since the Wagevoe a buy-out claim can be combined with an inquiry before the same court. What matters is that the sequence is chosen deliberately, because the first filing sets the tone of everything that follows.
What to do now
Secure the documentation before positions harden: the shareholders agreement, the articles, the minutes and notices of general meetings, the annual accounts and any interim figures, and the correspondence in which requests for information were made and refused. Put requests in writing and set a reasonable period for a response, because Article 2:349 DCC will later require you to show that the objections were raised with the board first.
Law and More advises shareholders and companies on shareholder disputes, from the first request for information to proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber. We assess the contractual position, the statutory routes available and the order in which they are best used, and we act for Dutch and international shareholders in both Dutch and English. Please feel free to contact us to discuss your situation.
Frequently asked questions
What can the Enterprise Chamber do?
Within the inquiry proceedings the OK has far-reaching powers: appointing a temporary director or supervisory board member, suspending board members, and temporarily transferring shares by way of administration (Article 2:356 DCC). These are interim measures — not a definitive transfer of ownership. Annulment of unlawful decisions does not take place via the OK, but via a claim before the ordinary court under Article 2:15 DCC. Both routes can run in parallel.
What are my rights as a minority shareholder?
In principle you are entitled to access to annual figures and meeting documents, and the right to challenge decisions that conflict with reasonableness and fairness (Articles 2:8 and 2:15 DCC). For inquiry proceedings, Article 2:346 DCC requires at least one tenth of the issued capital or shares with a nominal value of at least 225,000 euro, or such lower amount as the articles provide; other thresholds apply to companies with a larger issued capital and to listed companies. The requirement is alternative, and holdings may be added together. Additional rights are usually set out in the SHA and the articles of association.
What is the difference between mediation, arbitration and the OK?
Mediation is voluntary — both parties must agree on the outcome. Arbitration leads to a binding decision by a private arbitrator, outside the courts. The Enterprise Chamber is a judicial body that can, on request — even without the cooperation of the other party — take interim measures as soon as there are well-founded reasons to doubt the policy or course of affairs.
Can I hold a director personally liable?
Yes, but the threshold is high. Under Article 2:9 DCC, internal liability is possible where a director has improperly performed his duties and can be seriously blamed for it. Externally this can be done via Article 6:162 DCC if his conduct amounts to a tort. In cases of demonstrable self-enrichment, deception or systematic favouring of his own holding companies, this is a serious route — also as a means of pressure towards a settlement.
Do you also act for foreign shareholders?
Yes. Law & More has extensive experience with international shareholders and directors in Dutch BVs and NVs. We conduct proceedings in English and work closely with foreign advisers on matters with cross-border elements.
About the author
Tom Meevis is Managing Partner at Law & More in Eindhoven and Amsterdam. He advises Dutch and international companies on shareholder disputes, corporate litigation and proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer).
If you have a shareholder conflict, or suspect that your rights are being disregarded, we will assess the position and set out the routes that are open to you and the order in which they are best used.
Tom Meevis · +31 40 369 06 80 · info@lawandmore.nl
