Pursuant to Article 3:305a DCC, Stichting Gin Schade filed claims against the backer of failed investments in Dutch hardwood. Like the District Court, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 16 March 2021 that the foundation’s claims are inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of Article 3:305a DCC at the time the proceedings were instituted.[1] In doing so, the Court of Appeal attached importance to the fact that the requirements of the Claim Code 2011 had not been met, nor, for that matter, the new requirements of the Claim Code 2019. An amendment to its articles of association in 2018 was of no avail to the claim foundation, because that would entail that it was acting in a different capacity. The claims instituted on the basis of a mandate were also disregarded, because these had become time-barred, as the letter of interruption pertained explicitly to collective claims instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a DCC.

[1] Amsterdam Court of Appeal 16 March 2021, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:747.