Articles

The Court of Appeal in The Hague: the bank did not obtain a right of pledge on moveable assets subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) because the pledgor went bankrupt prior to satisfaction of its obligation to pay the purchase price for those assets

The Court of Appeal in The Hague: the bank did not obtain a right of pledge on moveable assets subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) because the pledgor went bankrupt prior to satisfaction of its obligation to pay the purchase price for those assets

The Court of Appeal in The Hague: the bank did not obtain a right of pledge on moveable assets subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) because the pledgor went bankrupt prior to satisfaction of its obligation to pay the purchase price for those assets

30.04.2015 NL law

In its judgment dated 2 September 2014, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that moveable assets obtained subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) should be considered future assets, and that ownership of such assets will be acquired after satisfaction of the relevant condition precedent (typically, full payment of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before acquiring ownership of such assets.

Court of Appeal in The Hague 2 September 2014 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2014:4352)

As security for its obligations under a credit facility agreement with a bank, a Dutch pledgor had pledged all of its assets in favour of the bank, including a moveable asset which it had acquired subject to a retention of title. Some time later, the pledgor was declared bankrupt. On the date of its bankruptcy, the pledgor had not paid the full purchase price for the moveable asset. The bank paid the outstanding amount after the bankruptcy of the pledgor. When the bankruptcy administrator sold the business (including the moveable asset) to a third party, the bank and the bankruptcy administrator both claimed to be entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the moveable asset. The legal dispute hinged on whether the pledgor had created a valid right of pledge on the moveable asset.

The bank took the position that the pledgor had acquired a conditional right of ownership of the moveable asset. According to the bank, the pledgor was able to dispose of such conditional right of ownership, e.g. create a right of pledge over the conditional right of ownership in favour of a third party. However, the Court of Appeal in The Hague held that Dutch law does not provide for a concept of a conditional right of ownership which is capable of being disposed of as an independent right. Although Dutch law provides the purchaser of moveable assets which are subject to a retention of title with a strong position, the purchaser does not acquire any right of ownership or any other right in rem in respect of such assets until the retention conditions have been satisfied in full. The Court of Appeal ruled that a moveable asset acquired subject to a right of retention qualifies as a future asset until satisfaction of the condition precedent (payment in full of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before having acquired ownership of such assets.

This ruling is important for retail companies with high inventory levels. This is because suppliers often negotiate a so-called extended retention of title (i.e. ownership of moveable assets sold is retained until the purchase price of those assets as well as the purchase price for assets sold before that time has been paid in full). Typically, the vast majority of the inventory of a retail company is acquired subject to a retention of title for the benefit of its suppliers. It follows from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Hague that assets acquired under retention of title are not capable of serving as bankruptcy-proof collateral. This could potentially result in a situation in which companies with high inventory levels will not be able to fund (part of) their inventory with bank credit.

Related news

15.10.2021 NL law
BRRD II implementation in the Netherlands

Short Reads - Recently, the Dutch bill for the implementation of BRRD II (i.e. Directive (EU) 2014/59 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/879) in the Netherlands was submitted to Dutch Parliament, where it is currently under debate.

Read more

01.10.2021 NL law
Vanaf 1 oktober strengere regelgeving voor verkoop van turbo’s aan particuliere beleggers

Short Reads - Turbobeleggers nemen veel risico’s en verliezen gemiddeld veel geld. De AFM vindt dat particuliere beleggers onvoldoende beschermd worden tegen de risico’s van turbo’s. De verkoop van turbo’s aan deze beleggers wordt daarom aan banden gelegd. Met ingang van 1 oktober geldt een hefboombeperking, een verplichte risicowaarschuwing en een verbod op handelsbonussen. Daarmee wil de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) particuliere beleggers beter beschermen tegen de risico’s van turbo’s.

Read more

14.10.2021 NL law
NFTs: New legal challenges on the horizon

Short Reads - Non-Fungible Tokens, widely known as NFTs, have recently gained much attention due to their role in the transfer of digital artworks. The market for NFTs grew from USD 13.5m in the first six months of 2020 to USD 2.5bn in the first half of 2021 and is still growing at an expansive rate. Notwithstanding their increasing popularity in the world of art, NFTs have many potential applications. In this blog Maciek Bednarski, Annemijn Witkam and Roderik Vrolijk explain what NFTs are and describe some of the legal challenges they will bring about.

Read more

20.09.2021 NL law
AFM: Beleggingsfondsen kunnen beleggers beter informeren over duurzaamheid

Articles - Beleggingsfondsen kunnen beleggers beter informeren over duurzaamheid. De informatieverschaffing van fondsen over duurzaamheidsrisico’s en duurzaamheidskenmerken is nog vaak te algemeen, daardoor krijgen beleggers te weinig inzicht in waar ze in investeren. Dat is een van de conclusies van de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in een verkennend onderzoek naar de toepassing van de Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).

Read more

11.10.2021 NL law
Vervolgonderzoek van de AFM naar incidentmeldingen door asset managers

Articles - Sinds de uitbraak van het coronavirus wordt ook in de financiële sector meer op afstand samengewerkt. Dat brengt specifieke risico’s met zich mee. De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) gaat daarom vervolgonderzoek doen naar het melden van incidenten door asset managers. De reden is het uitblijven van een stijging van het aantal incidentmeldingen ondanks herhaalde oproepen daartoe.

Read more