Directors take note: repeatedly continuing a loss-making business can lead to personal liability

Liability Law, Corporate Law

30 October 2025

Directors take note: repeatedly continuing a loss-making business can lead to personal liability

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

For directors within a group structure, a recent ruling by the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:5501) provides a clear warning: continuing to keep a loss-making business going without timely intervention can lead to personal liability for the shortfall in the estate on the grounds of manifestly improper management. The main rule is that once you have negative equity and keep posting losses, you must stop the business. In this case, a company suffered losses for years and effectively functioned as a “loss-absorbing vehicle” within the group.

The case

In 2016, a new BV (private limited company) was set up within a group to continue the activities of a subsidiary that had gone bankrupt shortly before. The BV manufactured valves for the oil and gas industry, but supplied almost exclusively to one sister company. The BV also had no financing of its own and ran entirely on group advances. Due to internal pricing arrangements, the business was loss-making from the outset and its equity structurally declined. When the board decided in 2022 to stop group financing, bankruptcy followed a year later.

Positions of the parties

The bankruptcy trustee accused the board of knowingly and deliberately maintaining a risky structure in which this BV had to bear all the risks and losses of the group. Creditors were structurally disadvantaged and, according to the trustee, fraudulent preferential transactions had been carried out in the run-up to the bankruptcy: the last assets had been sold to a sister company without actual payment, only through settlement in current account. The trustee therefore argued that the board was liable for the shortfall on the grounds of manifestly improper management (Section 2:248 of the Dutch Civil Code).

The board argued that the losses were the result of unforeseen external circumstances (the coronavirus pandemic, the energy crisis, the Suez crisis) and that the structure had already been set up before they took office, and thus fell outside the three-year period of Section 2:248(6) of the Dutch Civil Code, under which directors are normally only liable for manifestly improper management in the three years prior to the bankruptcy. In addition, the board relied on the discharge granted and argued that the internal settlements were not detrimental to creditors, because the BV’s assets remained the same on balance. According to the board, everything had been done to make the business succeed.

The court’s ruling

The court rejected these defences and ruled that the board had knowingly continued the loss-making structure and thereby accepted foreseeable risks for creditors:

The continuation fell within the three-year period of Section 2:248 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Discharge does not release a director from liability.
The transactions with the sister company were rightly classified as fraudulent preferential transactions.

The board sacrificed the company’s own interest to the interests of the group. Not external market factors, but the board’s own conduct was the main cause of the bankruptcy. The board was held jointly and severally liable to pay the shortfall, with an advance payment of €2,000,000.

Comparison with the Comsys ruling

With this, the court follows the line of the Comsys ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BH4033), in which a parent company was held liable for the debts of its subsidiary. In Comsys, the subsidiary continuously suffered losses, was dependent on group financing, and creditors were only protected by ongoing capital injections, while the parent company took no measures to safeguard their interests.

Whereas Comsys based liability on tort, the current ruling goes further by applying bankruptcy liability (Section 2:248 of the Dutch Civil Code). Even a structure set up earlier can fall under manifestly improper management if the current board knowingly continues it and accepts the risks for creditors.

Important lessons for directors

Intervene in good time in the event of structural losses and declining or negative equity.
Protect the interests of creditors and take the necessary measures to do so.
Do not keep a loss-making group company alive without taking action against the losses.
Be aware that passivity can lead to personal liability.

Anyone who remains passive as an entrepreneur while losses and debts pile up ultimately risks having to foot the bill themselves!

Do you have questions about director liability? We can advise you on this. Feel free to contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020 345 0152.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.