Earlier this year, DLA Piper provided a multi-jurisdictional overview of the implementation of the UBO register in several EEA jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Furthermore, DLA Piper Netherlands submitted some critical remarks as a response to the Dutch draft legislative proposal for implementation of the UBO register. According to the […]
In the beginning of this year, we posted a blog concerning the duty of disclosure of information of insurers regarding profiteering policies. Our conclusion: discords between several judicial authorities bring uncertainty to the position of insurers in the profiteering policy conflicts. We anticipated that the coming judgements might eliminate this uncertainty. What happened in the meantime?
Several (sometimes contradictory) rulings of district courts and a court of appeal were published. Furthermore – and more importantly – the Rotterdam district court published its ruling on the longstanding dispute between insurer Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Maatschappij N.V. (“NN”) and interest group Woekerpolis.nl. In this dispute, Woekerpolis.nl represents hundreds of thousands profiteering policy holders.
On 15 June 2017 the European Court of Justice held that disputes related to a credit agreement must be brought before the court of the state in which the credit institution is located. A credit institution can therefore bring a claim for repayment of a debt before the court of the state in which the credit institution is located. The same applies for recourse claims brought by jointly and severally liable debtors. The judgment is directly applicable in all member states of the European Union except Denmark.
The legislation that is applicable to the payment services market is currently subject to a lot of developments. In this blog an overview is provided of the highlights with regard to the development as of the first Payment Services Directive until the final draft regulatory technical standards published by the European Banking Authority on 23 February 2017. In the below overview, particular attention is dedicated to the first Dutch draft of legislation for the second Payment Services Directive, that was published for consultation in November 2016.
Within fourteen days, two different views on the duty of disclosure regarding profiteering policies were published. Opposite to the ruling of the Kifid, the District Court ruled in a similar case that the insurer had no additional duty of disclosure. This discords between the Kifid ruling and the District Court ruling bring uncertainty to the position of insurers that provided similar profiteering policies around the same issue date.
- Posted by Anka Langedijk
- On 10 January 2017
- Dutch Central Bank, financial sector, FinTech, supervision
At the end of 2016, the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, “DNB”) published its Supervision Outlook 2017. This document presents DNB’s priorities related to their supervision of financial industries. Furthermore, the document identifies DNB’s view on the principal risks and challenges for the Dutch financial industry. This article summarizes the contents of DNB’s Supervision Outlook 2017.
Yesterday’s news issued by the Dutch games of chance authority (Kansspelautoriteit, “KSA”) marked the kickoff of a phased totalizator licensing procedure. The KSA announced a transparent process in which a single license for horse and harness racing bets will be granted to a new license holder in the period 2017 to 2022.
The Dutch parliament finally passed the bill on remote gaming, enabling interested operators to obtain a long-awaited license to enter the Dutch market. One of the hot topics in Parliament was the tax rate. Eventually Parliament agreed upon a 29% tax rate, which rate is also applicable to land based gaming. The bill creates the […]
When taking action against illegal fake goods, you are no longer limited to goods destined for the EU. The new EU trademark rules introduce the right to take action against all goods at EU borders even when they are in transit (Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424, and article 10(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436). Counterfeit and to some extent lookalike goods are infringing unless proven otherwise by their holder. This means a reverse of the high burden of proof that trademark owners previously faced under the ECJ’s Philips and Nokia case law. It is up to the holder of the goods to prove that the trademark owner cannot rely on trademark protection in the country of final destination.
Grab the momentum to give your brand protection activities a boost by considering the following takeaways.
- Posted by Leonie Kroon
- On 6 May 2016
While the fashion and retail industry tries to keep up with the pace of the global digital evolution and changing consumer needs, brands need to stay in shape for possible investment or takeover. Profitability is usually the primary objective when buying a fashion business; however, there are several other crucial factors that a buyer or investor will consider.