Van der Veen's appointment as director of Aqualectra was valid

January 13, 2012 4:55 AM

The agreement of order with the financial director of Aqualectra, Dieudonné van der Veen, was realized in a valid way, attorney at law Thomas Aardenburg wrote to the Board of Commissioners (RvC).

The proposition of the RvC on the invalidity of the appointment decision will not stand, according to him.Van der Veen was given until January 6th to respond to the RvC’s letter in which the invalidity of the agreement of order – one and a half year after signing – is withdrawn. The RvC also raised this matter in the current summary proceedings. The judge in summary proceedings will pronounce judgment on 20  January.

In July 2009, Van der Veen had applied for the position of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) with Aqualectra. At the time, he was employed with utility company as financial manager. After several interviews and various tests, Aqualectra eventually chose Van der Veen of the ten candidates. He was appointed in the shareholders meeting of 11 May 2010. In that same meeting, the RvC was instructed to finalize the contract with Van der Veen. The Board of Governors had also approved the appointment. Van der Veen had signed his contract on30 June 2010. However, the RvC parades the viewpoint that the shareholder in the meeting of 11 May was represented by two directors of whom the judge had concluded in summary proceedings that they were not directors at that time. This means the appointment decision on Van der Veen was invalid. His agreement of order would be treated likewise, said Aardenburg.
 
According to Aardenburg, Van der Veen had no reason to assume that the two directors did not represent the shareholders legally. “Van der Veen therefore could rely on the appearance of mandate to these directors and Aqualectra is subsequently committed towards Van der Veen.” Aardenburg states that despite this, if a ratification of the shareholder should still take place, then it stands that this ratification took place tacitly because one had always acted according to the agreement of order with Van der Veen. Moreover, the then shareholder StIP has been dismantled in the meantime and the shares are now in the hands of the government organ that had already given its consent at the time for the appointment of order. For that reason the proposition of the RvC will not stand, said Aardenburg. The RvC is summoned to observe the agreement of order with Van der Veen, if not, the RvC will be held responsible for damages incurred by Van der Veen.

11 January 2012