Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JUNE 2021

Cartel Follow-On Litigation Under New Dutch Class Action System WAMCA

Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff
Contributor
Loyens & Loeff

Loyens & Loeff

One firm: Law and Tax Loyens & Loeff is a leading independent, full-service law and tax firm in...

View firm profile
Explore more from Loyens & Loeff

In the United States, class actions seem to be a go-to instrument for cartel follow-on litigation. In the United Kingdom, the (certification) criteria for collective proceedings were recently...

NetherlandsAntitrust/Competition Law
Mijke Sinninghe Damsté
Mijke Sinninghe Damsté
Huib Schrama
Huib Schrama

In the United States, class actions seem to be a go-to instrument for cartel follow-on litigation. In the United Kingdom, the (certification) criteria for collective proceedings were recently clarified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Merricks vs. Mastercard proceedings. What about the use of class actions for cartel follow-on litigation in the Netherlands, now that the recent Collective Damages in Class Actions Act (Dutch acronym WAMCA) has taken effect?

Cartel follow-on litigation in the Netherlands

The Netherlands is seen as an attractive jurisdiction for follow-on proceedings. Cartel follow-on proceedings are typically conducted by use of the assignment model (cessiemodel). There are only few examples where a class action in relation to antitrust infringements was brought (under the particular provision of Article 3:305a Dutch Civil Code, DCC).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Dutch Competition Regulator's Call-in Power Passes "First Phase" As Lower House Adopts Bill

The Netherlands is poised to grant its competition authority unprecedented power to scrutinize mergers that fall below traditional notification thresholds, targeting potentially harmful transactions such as roll-up strategies and killer acquisitions. While the Dutch House of Representatives has approved the bill despite criticism from the Council of State, the legislation introduces an asymmetric threshold system and raises standard notification requirements, fundamentally reshaping the country's merger con
NetherlandsAntitrust/Competition Law
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
Article

Dutch House Of Representatives Approves Proposed ACM Merger Control Call-In Power

The Dutch House of Representatives has approved legislation granting the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets unprecedented power to review and potentially block mergers and acquisitions that fall below existing turnover thresholds. This reform addresses concerns about "killer acquisitions" and strategic buy-and-build strategies that may escape traditional merger control scrutiny...
GlobalAntitrust/Competition Law
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

Dutch Call-in Powers Bill Moves Forward: House Of Representatives Adopts Draft Bill After Significant Amendments

The Dutch House of Representatives has adopted a private member's bill introducing call-in powers for the Dutch competition authority ACM, enabling review of below-threshold transactions while simultaneously raising mandatory notification thresholds. This reform shifts Dutch merger control from a purely threshold-based system toward a discretionary, risk-based regime that could significantly impact dealmakers pursuing roll-up strategies, buy-and-build models, or acquisitions in concentrated markets.
NetherlandsAntitrust/Competition Law
Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff
Article

OECD Releases New Pillar Two Guidance, Updated GIR And Framework For Legislative Reviews

The OECD has released new administrative guidance on Pillar Two's Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Rules, addressing explicitly conditional taxes and QDMTT safe harbour operations. The package includes an updated GloBE Information Return incorporating permanent safe harbours and establishes a peer review framework for assessing whether domestic legislation aligns with international standards.
NetherlandsTax
Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff
Article

Introduction Of A New Swiss Transparency Register

Switzerland's new Legal Entities Transparency Act introduces a centralised federal register of beneficial owners, fundamentally changing how Swiss companies must identify, document and report ultimate ownership and control structures. The regime imposes strict reporting deadlines beginning in late 2026, with criminal sanctions for non-compliance reaching up to CHF 500,000 for intentional breaches. Companies must now navigate complex look-through requirements, enhanced documentation obligations, and ongoing
SwitzerlandCorporate/Commercial Law
Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff
Article

OECD Consultation On Chapter VII (Intra-Group Services): Submitted Comments And Key Considerations

The OECD's proposed revisions to Chapter VII of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines represent the most extensive rewrite of intra-group services guidance in years, introducing new requirements for accurate delineation, expanded benefit testing, and dedicated documentation standards. Loyens & Loeff's Transfer Pricing team has submitted detailed comments assessing whether these changes reduce compliance burdens or risk increasing double taxation for multinational enterprises.
NetherlandsTax
Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff