Short Reads

Collective action on interest rate swaps dismissed by District Court

Collective action on interest rate swaps dismissed by District Court

21.07.2016 NL law

On 29 June 2016 the District Court of Oost-Brabant (“the District Court”) dismissed a collective action concerning SME entrepreneurs who had entered into interest rate swap agreements with Rabobank.

(ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:3383).

The District Court ruled that the claims were inadmissible because the interests of the SME entrepreneurs were not sufficiently safeguarded and the action did not aim to protect similar interests.

Background of the claims

The action was initiated by ‘Stichting Renteswapschadeclaim’ (“the claim entity”) and concerned, among other things, Rabobank’s interest rate swap service provisions from 2005 to 2008. The claim entity submitted various claims, mainly invoking error, breach of contract and tort, arguing that Rabobank had not fulfilled its duty of care towards the SME entrepreneurs.

Requirements for the admissibility of a collective action

A collective action can be based on article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code. Under this article, a claim entity can start a collective action to protect similar interests of other persons if its articles of association promote such interests. The action needs to be preceded by consultations and the interests of the persons on whose behalf the action is instituted need to be sufficiently safeguarded. In its judgment, the District Court elaborated on these requirements.

The inadmissibility of the collective action brought by ‘Stichting Renteswapschadeclaim’

The District Court agreed with the arguments advanced by Rabobank that the claim entity had not sufficiently attempted to achieve the objective of the action through consultation. However, this reason alone was not enough for the District Court to dismiss the collective action. The District Court also ruled that Rabobank’s interests were not harmed, because it was apparent during the court hearing that the parties would not have reached a settlement anyway.

Rabobank further argued that the interests of the aggrieved SME entrepreneurs were insufficiently safeguarded. It stated that the claim entity had not complied with the Claim Code and was mainly commercially driven. The Claim Code is a self-regulatory document that provides guidelines for claim entities. The District Court concluded that the claim entity had not complied with the provisions of this Code and noted in particular that there was a concentration of power with the chairman of the entity. As a result, there were few safeguards in place to prevent the chairman from prioritizing his own personal interests above the interests of the aggrieved. The District Court therefore ruled that the collective action was inadmissible. Rabobank also argued that the action did not aim to protect sufficiently similar interests. This requirement can only be met when it is possible to rule on the collective claims in the same proceedings, without taking individual circumstances into account (ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK5756). According to the District Court, the wrongfulness of Rabobank’s actions could not be assessed without taking the individual circumstances of each SME entrepreneur and the individual nature of Rabobank’s defence arguments into account. Also, the conduct of the different Rabobank branches was not sufficiently uniform. Therefore, the claims could not be dealt with collectively.

In short

This judgment is an important signal that collective actions cannot be used to resolve each and every mass damage case. Some cases – like this case on interest rate swaps – may not be suitable for collective adjudication. The judgment also reflects the development of increasing scrutiny towards the entities that bring collective actions. 

Related news

23.01.2018 NL law
Overview of Legislative Proposal on Collective Action (NL) - As amended by the Amendment Bill of 11 January 2018

Articles - In the Netherlands, it is possible for a representative entity to bring a "collective action" on an "opt-out basis" under article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (the "DCC"). However, under the current provisions in Dutch law, the representative entity is not entitled to claim monetary damages. This limitation is likely to be removed in the not too distant future.

Read more

11.01.2018 NL law
Witness examination and the withdrawal of a judge

Short Reads - In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a judge is allowed to critically interrogate a witness and remind a witness of his oath. Such action is not an indication that a judge is not impartial or independent.

Read more

18.01.2018 NL law
Aandacht voor de bescherming van vennootschappen tegen ongewenste biedingen

Short Reads - Mede naar aanleiding van een reeks van (pogingen tot) ongewenste overnames van buitenlandse bieders op Nederlandse beursgenoteerde vennootschappen zoals PostNL, Unilever en AkzoNobel is er in Nederland – maar overigens ook in Europees verband – aandacht voor de bescherming van vennootschappen tegen ongewenste biedingen en de bescherming van vitale sectoren. In deze Corporate Update behandelen we de laatste ontwikkelingen op dit gebied.

Read more

10.01.2018 NL law
Fire, furniture and strict liability for buildings used for business

Short Reads - Persons using a building in the course of running a business might be liable for damage caused by a defect in the building on the basis of strict liability. Such liability exists if there is a link between the origin of the defect and the running of the business. In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court clarified how to ascertain whether there is such a link.

Read more

05.01.2018 BE law
Wie bewaakt de bewakers? Vlaanderen schaft substitutierecht inwoners van gemeente af

Articles - Het Decreet Lokaal Bestuur van 21 december 2017 schaft het substitutierecht voor inwoners om namens hun gemeente in rechte op te komen, af. De Vlaamse regering en de Vlaamse decreetgever achten het substitutierecht "weinig zinnig en democratisch verantwoord". Een dergelijke verantwoording van de afschaffing van het substitutierecht lijkt problematisch in het licht van het beginsel van de scheiding der machten. Daarmee rijst de onvermijdelijke vraag: wie bewaakt de bewakers? Wellicht het Grondwettelijk Hof.

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 and Cookie Policy