Articles

Dutch Supreme Court: Termination of a credit agreement may be invalid if, given the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, the exercise of a termination right is unacceptable according to applicable standards of reasonableness and fairness

Dutch Supreme Court: Termination of a credit agreement may be invalid if, given the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, the exercise of a termination right is unacceptable according to applicable standards of reasonableness and fairness

Dutch Supreme Court: Termination of a credit agreement may be invalid if, given the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, the exercise of a termination right is unacceptable according to applicable standards of reasonableness and fairness

30.04.2015 NL law

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam had correctly applied applicable standards of reasonableness and fairness, which provide that the termination of a credit agreement may be invalid if the exercise of a termination right is unacceptable according to such standards, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand. 


In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had not misapplied the standards of reasonableness and fairness by weighing the interests of the bank and the borrower against each other and had duly taken into account the special duty of care owed by the bank pursuant to the applicable general terms and conditions.

Dutch Supreme Court, 10 October 2014 (ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2929)

The bank was the lender under a credit agreement providing for an overdraft facility with an indefinite term and two fixed-rate loans with defined maturity dates. The applicable general terms and conditions included a provision for the automatic termination of the credit agreement and the loans becoming immediately due in the event of a payment default by the borrower. In 2009, the bank informed the borrower that it would terminate the credit agreement stating that the borrower had not complied with certain of its obligations. 

The Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ruled that the termination of the fixed-rate loans on the basis of the automatic termination provision was invalid. The Court of Appeal held that invocation by the bank of the automatic termination provision was contrary to applicable standards of reasonableness and fairness when taking into account the interests of the bank and the borrower, and given the special duty of care owed by the bank pursuant to its general terms and conditions. The Court of Appeal ruled that the bank had terminated the fixed-rate loans without taking due care of the justified interests of the borrower, and that the bank's own interest in terminating the fixed-rate loans was limited considering its comfortable credit and security position against the borrower. The bank filed an appeal with the Dutch Supreme Court.

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the standards of reasonableness and fairness, which provide that the termination of a credit agreement may be invalid if the exercise of a termination right is unacceptable according to such standards, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had not misapplied the standards of reasonableness and fairness by weighing the interests of the bank and the borrower against each other and taking into account the special duty of care owed by the bank pursuant to the applicable general terms and conditions. Accordingly, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam.

The ruling serves as a reminder that a termination provision included in a credit agreement may not be validly invoked by the lender if the invocation thereof, based on the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, conflicts with applicable standards of reasonableness and fairness. The judgment provides additional clarity on how those standards of reasonableness and fairness may be applied to the termination of a credit agreement and which facts and circumstances may be taken into account.

Related news

25.04.2018 EU law
25 April 2018: Stibbe sponsors LPEA Insights conference in Luxembourg on 'Building the Real Economy'

Conference - LPEA, Luxembourg Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, organises a conference in Luxembourg, which brings on stage General Partners (GPs) and Limited Partners (LPs) to discuss and showcase the private equity sector from the perspective of local practitioners, together with additional contributions from guest speakers specially invited to the event. Stibbe Luxembourg is a proud sponsor of this event, which some of our lawyers will attend.  

Read more

09.05.2018 EU law
Proposed EU Directive to help companies move across borders

Short Reads - On 25 April 2018 the European Commission proposed a new directive, amending the EU Directive 2017/1132 on company law. The proposed rules should support companies in moving from one EU country to another, i.e. cross-border mergers, divisions or conversions. However, the proposed rules for cross-border divisions and conversions will also require companies to get prior consent from a competent national authority before moving. Who will act as such authority is not clear yet.

Read more

11.04.2018 NL law
Court of Appeal: Deed of pledge does not cover all present receivables

Short Reads - 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal denies pledgee's claim that all present and future receivables of the pledgor were pledged to it by a deed of pledge dated 20 January 2014 and ruled that the receivables listed in the schedule attached to the deed of pledge were leading to establish on which receivables a right of pledge was created.

Read more

10.04.2018 NL law
Inkoop van eigen aandelen door beursvennootschappen

Articles - Nu de financiële crisis aan zijn eind lijkt te zijn gekomen, en veel beursgenoteerde ondernemingen een goed gevulde kas hebben, lijkt de inkoop van eigen aandelen weer in zwang te raken. Onder strikte voorwaarden is de inkoop van eigen aandelen door een uitgevende instelling uitgezonderd van het in de Market Abuse Regulation geformuleerde marktmanipulatieverbod en het verbod op het gebruikmaken van voorwetenschap. In dit artikel bespreekt Roderik Vrolijk vanuit een praktisch perspectief deze uitzonderingen.  

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring