The judge presiding over preliminary relief proceedings in Rotterdam has rejected the request by Solvinity and shareholder Vitruvian Partners to suspend the takeover ban on Dutch IT service provider Solvinity. The judge acknowledged the legal basis for the ban and ruled that a takeover by Kyndryl could pose a threat to the public interest.
Solvinity and the London-based private-equity firm Vitruvian Partners had requested that the decision by State Secretary Willemijn Aerdts (Digital Economy and Sovereignty) be suspended. The court did not recognize the plaintiffs’ urgent interest but did issue a detailed ruling. In it, the court acknowledged the legal basis for the ban. According to Smit, the court ruled, among other things, that “the acquisition of Solvinity by Kyndryl Netherlands could pose a threat to the public interest.” According to the ruling, a suspension could have irreversible consequences.
Foundations as interested parties
The judge considers the foundations The Firewall and Privacy First to be interested parties. This means they can take action again in the event of similar acquisitions in the future. Aerdts is criticized in the ruling for her “attitude toward the proceedings that is not in line with the rule of law,” which, according to Smit, is linked to attempts to keep the foundations out of the proceedings.
The ban itself dates back to late May. At that time, Aerdts adopted a negative recommendation from the Investment Review Board, which identified a risk to the public interest. Opponents argue that the deal, worth at least 100 million euros, would jeopardize the infrastructure behind DigiD and MijnOverheid. Kyndryl announced the acquisition in November 2025; at that time, no controversy had yet arisen. The competition regulator ACM had also previously approved the transaction.
Conflict between Kyndryl and Solvinity
According to Smit, details in the ruling show that Solvinity and Kyndryl are in conflict with each other. Earlier this year, an arbitration case took place between the two companies. Smit concludes from this that Solvinity demanded the acquisition be completed, while Kyndryl did not want to proceed. According to him, this also explains why Kyndryl is not contesting the ban.
Solvinity previously argued that the State Secretary was swayed by media hype and that the company’s survival is at stake. In addition to this preliminary injunction, a broader appeal against the decision is still pending.