That Beljaarts was blameless was not the view of the insurer and trustee

To settle or not to settle with the curator? It is a consideration in many bankruptcies, including that of KHN Rekenwerk, subsidiary of Koninklijke Horeca Nederland. Economic Affairs Minister Dirk Beljaarts was a statutory director here at the time of the bankruptcy and in the years before. This week it became known that his insurer has settled with the receiver. The ‘spin’ that Beljaarts' spokesman subsequently gave it reads as follows:

'Trustee and insurer have decided to resolve it this way. In which they stressed that Beljaarts did not attract any liability.'

And yet the insurer pays €550,000

As a lawyer of directors sued by the receiver, it is certainly not my experience that insurers easily pay out if they are convinced that the insured ‘did not encounter any form of liability’. After all, even first instance proceedings as well as appeals cost less than 20% of this settlement amount.

Malpractices led to irrecoverable (ghost) invoices

The bankruptcy report also shows that serious malversations took place: ‘In many cases, activities were not or not completely carried out, as a result of which the administration (of the clients of KHN Rekenwerk) is incomplete. Also, in many cases declarations were not submitted to the tax authorities and annual accounts were not prepared. Although a monthly fee was paid by the clients for this, the agreed work was not carried out.'

That's quite a lot. No wonder clients no longer wanted to pay and bankruptcy was inevitable.

Expressions spokesperson are almost Trumpian

Beljaarts, as statutory director, was partly responsible for this, so it seems to me non-existent that he was ‘not affected by any liability’. His defence is that although he had been a director since as early as 2020, he only started to get intensively involved in (running) the trust office since 2023. Besides not understanding what non-intensive management means (you either manage or you don't), this seems to me to be a circumstance that leads to liability rather than a ground for disculpation.

The bottom line is that the trustee was able to negotiate a good compensation for the estate with the settlement but in doing so (in the report) only mentions that settlement was reached ‘without any liability of Beljaarts being established’. That really is something quite different from the fact that (also) the trustee would have ‘emphasised that Beljaarts did not meet any form of liability’.

So the spokesperson has evidently not been guided by the facts, but has given the truth a ‘spin’. Almost Trumpian, but probably good enough for public opinion.