Short Reads

Dutch Supreme Court rules on position of estate claim pledgee

Dutch Supreme Court rules on position of estate claim pledgee

Dutch Supreme Court rules on position of estate claim pledgee

29.07.2016 NL law

In a recent judgment the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the holder (an "Estate Claim Pledgee") of a right of pledge (an "Estate Claim Pledge") which secures one or more estate claims (each, a "Secured Estate Claim") is entitled to satisfy such claims out of the proceeds resulting from enforcement of such right of pledge ("Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds") during the pledgor's bankruptcy provided that the claims have arisen from a legal relationship having come into existence prior to the bankruptcy.

Dutch Supreme Court 15 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:665)

The ruling actually addresses two questions. Firstly, to what extent is an Estate Claim Pledgee entitled to satisfy its Secured Estate Claims out of the Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds during the pledgor's bankruptcy? Secondly, can the right of seizure by the tax authority of moveable assets located on the premises (bodemvoorrecht) of the bankrupt party be invoked against the holder of Secured Estate Claims in case the bankruptcy receiver claims surrender of the enforcement proceeds of the inventory subject to such right of seizure?

A Dutch international brewing company leased a building to a night club entertainment company. In 2008 the entertainment company granted the brewing company a right of pledge over its inventory as security for, among others, its obligations under the lease. In 2011 the entertainment company was declared bankrupt. For some time the bankruptcy receiver continued the lease in order to facilitate an orderly restructuring of the night club business but ultimately the bankruptcy receiver agreed with the brewing company to terminate the lease given that a successful restructuring had at that time become unlikely to succeed. Subsequently the brewing company enforced its right of pledge over the inventory, realizing enforcement proceeds in an amount of EUR 50,000.

The bankruptcy receiver, representing the interests of the tax authority as preferential creditor claimed that the brewing company should transfer the enforcement proceeds to the bankrupt estate, arguing that an Estate Claim Pledgee is not entitled to satisfy the Secured Estate Claims out of Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds but should instead transfer the Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds to the bankrupt estate. In subsequent litigation the bankruptcy receiver's claims was dismissed by both the Amsterdam District Court and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.

Following an appeal by the bankruptcy receiver, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that an Estate Claim Pledgee is entitled to satisfy its Secured Estate Claims out of the Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds during the pledgor's bankruptcy, provided that the Secured Estate Claims have arisen from a legal relationship which has come into existence prior to the date of bankruptcy. The first reason is that bankruptcy in itself does not affect contractual obligations. In the case at hand, the lease had remained intact for some time after the bankruptcy of the entertainment company, giving rise to the estate claims which fell within the scope of claims secured by the Estate Claim Pledge. The second reason is that lease claims arising after bankruptcy of the lessee qualify as estate claims for purposes of offering protection to the lessor. It would be inappropriate if a right of pledge securing those claims would become ineffective as a result of such qualification.

In respect of the second question, it should be noted that under general rules of Dutch bankruptcy law, a claim secured by a non-possessory right of pledge ranks lower than tax claims for which the tax authority can exercise its bodemvoorrecht. In such cases a bankruptcy receiver is entitled to claim the enforcement proceeds from the pledgee for the benefit of the bankrupt estate and apply such enforcement proceeds towards the settlement of estate claims (including the bankruptcy receiver's salary). However, the Dutch Supreme Court considered that tax claims do not rank above estate claims and subsequently ruled that, given the fact that the Estate Claim Pledge validly secured the Estate Claim Pledgee's Secured Estate Claims, the bankruptcy receiver was not entitled to claim the Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds from the Estate Claim Pledgee.

Given the reinforcement of their position we believe that the Supreme Court judgment will have a positive impact on the willingness of Estate Claim Pledgees to provide their cooperation to an orderly restructuring of the business of a bankrupt pledgor.

Source: Banking and Finance Update July 2016

Team

Related news

01.09.2020 NL law
Toezichthouders aan de poort

Articles - Het kan iedere financiële onderneming overkomen: in de bus vindt men een verzoek om informatie te verstrekken aan een van  de financiële toezichthouders, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) of de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM). Een dergelijk verzoek leidt al snel tot onrust binnen de onderneming. Ingrid Viertelhauzen en Maciek Bednarski bespreken de reikwijdte van de inlichtingenbevoegdheid en plaatsen hier enkele kanttekeningen bij.

Read more

10.08.2020 NL law
ISDA kondigt publicatie van Adjusted RFRs, wijziging van de 2006 Definitions en IBOR Fallback Protocol aan

Short Reads - In twee in juli verschenen persberichten kondigt ISDA (i) de aanvang van de berekening en publicatie door Bloomberg van zogenaamde 'Fallback Rates' voor een aantal bestaande IBORs en (ii) de voorgenomen publicatie door ISDA van gewijzigde 'rate options' in de 2006 Definitions en het langverwachte IBOR Fallback Protocol aan.

Read more

01.09.2020 NL law
Handhavingsbesluiten van financiële toezichthouders bestuursrechtelijk aanvechten

Articles - Financiële toezichthouders (Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM), De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) en de Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)) hebben een breed arsenaal aan formele sancties en informele maatregelen tot hun beschikking om normconform gedrag bij marktpartijen te bewerkstelligen. Voorbeelden daarvan zijn: een last onder dwangsom, een bestuurlijke boete, een aanwijzing, een waarschuwing, een normoverdragend gesprek en de publicatie van sancties.

Read more

21.07.2020 NL law
Financiële sector moet klimaatrisico’s bespreken met klanten

Short Reads - Financiële instellingen moeten in gesprekken met klanten aandacht besteden aan klimaatrisico’s. Bij zakelijke klanten met name over de mogelijke impact van klimaatrisico’s op hun bedrijfsvoering en bij hypotheekeigenaren bijvoorbeeld over de verduurzaming van hun woning. Ook in het licht van het Klimaatcommitment van de financiële sector is dit van belang. Dit blijkt uit een bloemlezing van acht Nederlandse financiële instellingen, verenigd onder het Platform voor Duurzame financiering.

Read more

28.08.2020 NL law
Loan Market Association publiceert aanvulling op bestaande Revised Replacement of Screen Rate Clause in reactie op aanbeveling van Working Group on Sterling Risk-Free Reference Rates

Short Reads - In het kader van de rentebenchmarktransitie (voor uitleg en achtergrond, zie mijn vorige publicatie van augustus 2020) heeft de Loan Market Association (LMA) in mei 2018 een zogenaamde 'Replacement of Screen Rate Clause' gepubliceerd die partijen in hun op door de LMA ontwikkelde standaarddocumentatie gebaseerde kredietovereenkomsten kunnen opnemen.

Read more