Bij brief van 8 juni 2022 heeft mr. Stuurop aan mr. Wiersma onder meer het volgende bericht:
‘(…) As also explained during our call, my clients are left with a sense of shock and disbelief following the inexplicable and rash actions taken by LINK (…) and Tismi (…). A week has now passed since my clients were suddenly suspended in relation to supposed ‘suspicious activities’ within Tismi and since LINK has instructed GrantThornton to carry out an investigation into those suspicious activities. To date, my clients have still not been informed on what it is they are potentially accused of and it remains unclear what it actually is that GrantThornton is going to investigate. To be clear, my clients are not aware of any irregularities within Tismi and strongly deny any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Contrary to what has been indicated in the letters sent to my clients on behalf of Tismi on June 2nd, 2022, my client have not been given the opportunity to present their point of view regarding their suspension as employee and – insofar as it concerns Mr. [eiser 2] – managing director of Tismi. LINK and Tismi have not even made any effort to directly discuss the matter with my clients and have not even allowed my clients to provide an explanation on whatever has led to concerns about certain activities. They are simply left in the dark on what the supposed suspicious activities entail and on what their supposed involvement therewith would be, and have therefore not been able to respond to the supposed allegations against them. This is unacceptable (…)
I can therefore only conclude that my clients’ suspension is unwarranted, premature and entirely disproportionate, and that LINK and Tismi have acted without the due care owed to my clients by virtue of good employment practices, rules of corporate governance and generally accepted standards. In addition, this means that the shareholders’ resolution regarding Mr. [eiser 2] ’s suspension as managing director is subject to annulment.
Apart from the fact that it is manifest that this breach of due process is starting to become irreparable, the actions of LINK and Tismi have already caused, and will likely continue to cause, significant damage to my clients’ reputation and legitimate interests. It is also evident that this is starting to cause serious damage to Tismi itself. As discussed, my clients have already been approached by several external parties, including some of Tismi’s biggest clients, who have apparently been informed on the fact that my clients are no longer active within Tismi. Obviously, it is unacceptable that information regarding my clients’ position within Tismi had been disclosed. LINK and Tismi are solely responsible for the damage their actions are causing to both my clients and Tismi.
As already noted during our conversation, my clients will fully cooperate with the investigation carried out by GrantThornton as they are convinced they will be able to definitively clear their name, whatever it is they are being accused of. Notwithstanding, they believe it is very important that they are also given the chance to discuss the situation with the representatives of LINK and Tismi directly, which would allow them to respond to any questions or concerns that might exit regarding the activities at Tismi. They strongly feel that this could prevent a further escalation. I also note that it is of the utmost importance that this matter is dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Each day that the current situation is allowed to continue will cause additional and irreparable damage to my clients and Tismi.
(…)
For now, I ask that you ultimately by tomorrow, provide me with the following:
(i) Information on the supposed suspicious activities within Tismi and my client’s supposed involvement therewith;
(ii) A confirmation that LINK and Tismi will cease and desist all communication, both externally and internally, regarding my clients and the current situation;
(iii) A confirmation on whether LINK and Tismi are prepared to discuss the situation that has arisen with my clients directly, also with a view to prevent a further (legal) escalation.
(…)’