In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">MetaCorp International Inc v [Defendant] (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:2532)</span>, MetaCorp sought to set aside, or partially set aside, an award made on 1 September 2022 in Netherlands Arbitration Institute proceedings in The Hague. The arbitration arose under an Aruban-law Share Valuation Agreement. Following the termination of a former chief executive officer’s employment in 2020, they were required to transfer 87,200 shares back to MetaCorp. The tribunal fixed the valuation date at 31 December 2019 and ordered MetaCorp to pay approximately USD31.45 million, plus statutory interest from 27 November 2020.
MetaCorp’s principal challenge concerned the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator appointed by the defendant. It argued that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose previous business contacts with the defendant made the award contrary to public policy under article 1065(1)(e) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), or alternatively meant that the tribunal had failed to comply with its mandate. MetaCorp also challenged the interest start date because neither party had specifically pleaded it.
The Court of Appeal stressed that proceedings to set aside an award under article 1065 DCCP are not an appeal on the merits and require a restrained approach. It agreed that the arbitrator’s disclosure was deficient: the earlier contacts should have been disclosed cumulatively so that the parties could decide whether to make further enquiries or bring a challenge. The omission, however, did not itself justify setting aside the award.
Applying the Dutch Supreme Court’s strict post-award test in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Nordström/Van Nievelt (ECLI:NL:HR:1994:ZC1266)</span>, the court held that MetaCorp had not shown either an actual lack of impartiality and independence when the award was made or doubts so serious that it would be unacceptable to hold MetaCorp to the award. The award was unanimous; the advisory contacts were limited and dated; and MetaCorp could be treated as responsible for not discovering them while an arbitrator challenge remained available. The court also rejected MetaCorp’s argument that the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in BEG SpA v Italy displaced that post-award test.
The court likewise rejected MetaCorp’s public policy, excess-of-mandate and inadequate-reasons objections to the interest award. The decision was not a surprise: the parties had fully debated default, notice, creditor default and the interest start date. The tribunal applied the law to facts already before it rather than introducing a new factual basis. Its chosen date, 27 November 2020, the date of the arbitration request, was more favourable to MetaCorp than the dates the defendant had claimed primarily and alternatively.
Nor had the tribunal exceeded its mandate. The wording of the claim left room for other relief the tribunal considered appropriate and its rejection of MetaCorp’s creditor-default defence could sufficiently be inferred from its finding that no such default could have existed on 27 November 2020. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application in full.
The judgment reaffirms the demanding standard for a post-award impartiality challenge under article 1065 DCCP and the tribunal’s latitude to fix an interest start date within the issues debated by the parties.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">MetaCorp International Inc v [Defendant] (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:2532)</span>, 7 July 2026 (judgment in Dutch).
