Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company
Einde inhoudsopgave
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company (IVOR nr. 72) 2010/6.6.9.2:6.6.9.2 Costs of valuation report
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company (IVOR nr. 72) 2010/6.6.9.2
6.6.9.2 Costs of valuation report
Documentgegevens:
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries, datum 03-05-2010
- Datum
03-05-2010
- Auteur
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS402966:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
It is in the court's discretion to order which of the parties must bear the costs of the experts' report, but the order regarding the division of the costs must be included in the judgment in which the price of the shares is determined. The court may also order that parties have to bear the costs of the report jointly. Moreover, after having heard the company itself, the court may order that the costs are for the account of the company, even if the company is not party to the proceedings. In that situation, the company may appeal to the order to bear the costs of the proceedings. Lastly, the court may order that the costs are divided between the parties in proceedings and the company itself. All these possibilities are contained in Art. 2:340 paragraph 1 DCC in conjunction with Art. 2:343 paragraph 2 DCC.
With respect to the order for payments of costs of the expert's report, appeal is open if the case is handled with the District Court. As indicated in the legislative history, this possibility does not slow down the exit proceedings.1
As the valuation by experts often is a (very) expensive exercise, it can be helpful to request the court for security for costs. Art. 195 Rv enables the court upon or even without request to ask the experts for an estimation of their costs. The court may order the claimant to put an advance in escrow with the registry (griffie) of the court with respect to the experts' costs. In addition, it is in the court's discretion to order either parties or solely another party to provide the advance, if it would be more reasonable to do so under the circumstances of the case. On the basis of Art. 196 Rv the court may order that the advance must be paid within a certain period of time.2 As these rules seem to appropriately cover the matter of security for costs, it does not seem necessary introducing a more specific rule into proceedings for the settlement of disputes.3