A Dutch court has dismissed a €250,000 claim against the directors of a bankrupt haulier, despite finding serious flaws in the company’s administration. The court accepted that deteriorating market conditions, including fuel prices, wage costs, driver shortages and fixed-price contracts, were a major cause of the collapse.
The Limburg District Court ruled that the directors of Mak Transport BV, a Hoensbroek-based company active in road haulage and removals, had rebutted the presumption that improper management was an important cause of the bankruptcy.
Mak Transport BV was founded at the end of 2022 and went bankrupt in June 2024, according to the local press. The curator, Auke Stegeman, argued that the directors should be held personally liable for the shortfall in the bankruptcy and asked the court to order an advance payment of €250,000.
RTV Parkstad reports that the curator has since asked the supervisory judge for permission to appeal the ruling.
Fixed-price contracts left the company exposed The directors argued that the company had been hit by a combination of external pressures after trading conditions deteriorated. The court accepted that explanation.
The court referred to sharply higher fuel prices, rising wage costs under collective labour agreements and a shortage of drivers. The company also had fixed-price agreements with customers, which meant higher costs could not easily be passed on. Unexpected repair bills and unpaid invoices added further pressure.
The directors said the market had looked favourable when the company started, but conditions in the transport sector worsened quickly afterwards. The court considered that explanation sufficiently substantiated.
Administration was faulty, but not the main cause The court did find serious shortcomings in the company’s administration. According to Transport Online, underlying documents were missing, several accounting entries were incorrect, and the bookkeeping did not provide a reliable view of the company’s financial position.
Under Dutch bankruptcy law, such failures can create a presumption that improper management was an important cause of the bankruptcy, leaving directors to rebut that presumption. The official case summary published on Rechtspraak.nl states that the directors had not kept proper records, but had succeeded in rebutting it.
In other words, the bookkeeping problems were serious, but the court was not convinced that they were the reason the company failed.
Court rejects claim that directors carried on for too long The curator also argued that the directors had continued operating a non-viable company for too long, thereby disadvantaging creditors.
The court rejected that argument. According to Transport Online, it had not been sufficiently shown that the company’s situation was so hopeless that the directors should have stopped trading earlier. The court also took into account that the directors were still trying to agree payment arrangements, find new customers and collect outstanding invoices.
A separate claim based on unlawful conduct towards creditors was also dismissed.
The curator’s claims were rejected in full. The court ordered each side to bear its own legal costs, partly because the directors only produced additional administrative documents late in the proceedings. That late disclosure did not change the outcome on liability, but it did affect the court’s decision on costs.
