Articles

Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden: Termination of a credit agreement by the bank was allowed, following reduction of the value of pledged shares caused by actions of the borrower

Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden: Termination of a credit agreement by the bank was allowed, following reduction of the value of pledged shares caused by actions of the borrower

Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden: Termination of a credit agreement by the bank was allowed, following reduction of the value of pledged shares caused by actions of the borrower

22.12.2015 NL law

In a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.

 

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)

 

 

On 2 September 2004 a Dutch bank and its client entered into a credit agreement in which the bank provided the client with a Swiss Franc loan for approximately EUR 2,000,000. The client was the sole shareholder of the company, which owned the country estate on which the client lived. As security for the client's obligations under the credit agreement, the client created a right of pledge over the shares in the company. The deed of pledge stipulated that the borrower must refrain from activities which would or could, among other things, result in a reduction of the value of the shares. On 10 February 2012 the client procured that the company granted a right of mortgage over the country estate to a third party as security for the repayment of a EUR 2,500,000 loan made by that third party to the client. The bank took the position that the creation of the right of mortgage over the country estate resulted in a reduction of the value of the shares in the company and, hence, the bank terminated the credit agreement.
 

 

After summary proceedings before the District Court of Arnhem, an appeal was filed. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the creation of the right of mortgage provided sufficient ground for the bank to prematurely terminate the credit agreement. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal referred to the criterion applied in the Supreme Court ruling dated 10 October 2014 (ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2929) that premature termination of a credit agreement in a specific event, taking into account the circumstances, is only unlawful if premature termination does not meet the standards of reasonableness and fairness under Dutch law.

The Court of Appeal considered that the company did not have material assets other than the country estate, valued at EUR 3,500,000, and that the right of mortgage was created as security for at least EUR 2,500,000 of debts. In the event of an enforcement of the right of mortgage, chances were slim that proceeds would be generated beyond what was owed to the third party, especially given the fact that sale proceeds tend to be lower in enforcement scenarios. Consequently, the Court of Appeal considered that the credit agreement was effectively no longer fully secured by the right of pledge over the shares in the company. On the basis of these considerations the Court of Appeal ruled that it was sufficiently plausible that the value of the shares had been reduced as a result of the creation of the right of mortgage over the country estate and that the client, who had procured the creation of the right of mortgage by the company, was therefore in breach of its obligation to refrain from actions which could result in a decrease of the value of the shares.

Provisions prohibiting a borrower or security provider to refrain from action which could result in a reduction of the value of collateral are omnipresent in Dutch security agreements. This is one of few occasions on which such provision is the subject of court proceedings. The judgment of the Court of Appeal demonstrates that courts are willing to interpret such provision widely and that all kinds of action which could result in the reduction of value of collateral may be deemed to constitute a breach of the obligations of the borrower and provide a valid ground for termination of the credit agreement by the bank.

This article was published in the Banking and Finance Update of December 2015.

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

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

19.03.2018 EU law
The third-party effects of cross-border assignments of claims – Draft EU Regulation aiming to achieve legal certainty

Short Reads - On 12 March 2018, the European Commission (EC) published proposals on covered bonds, cross-border distribution of investment funds and cross-border transactions in claims and securities. The proposals are linked to the 2015 Action Plan on Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the European Commission's Mid-term Review that was published in June 2017.

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