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

23.07.2018 NL law
Evaluatie Wbfo en start consultatie over mogelijke wijzigingen/wettelijke maatregelen voor vaste beloning

Short Reads - Op 17 juli 2018 heeft de minister van Financiën de twee rapporten over de evaluatie van de Wet beloningsbeleid financiële ondernemingen (Wbfo) aangeboden aan de Tweede Kamer. Tevens is een maatschappelijke consultatie naar drie wettelijke maatregelen met betrekking tot de vaste beloningen geopend.

Read more

16.07.2018 NL law
ISDA publishes consultation on benchmark fallbacks

Short Reads - ISDA publishes consultation on benchmark fallbacks. As part of an initiative to amend its standard derivatives documentation to facilitate the replacement of existing interbank offered rates (IBORs) by risk free rates (RFRs), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has published a consultation paper on certain adjustments required to such RFRs.

Read more

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

11.07.2018 NL law
Update initiatiefwetsvoorstel introductie instemmingsrecht en aanscherping vaste beloning bankiers

Short Reads - Op 25 april 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna Raad van State) een kritisch advies uitgebracht over het initiatief-wetsvoorstel om de wet op het financieel toezicht (Wft) te wijzigen. Op 5 juli 2018 is dit advies tezamen met de reactie van de initiatiefnemers van het wetsvoorstel op het advies van de Raad van State gepubliceerd, evenals het aangepaste wetsvoorstel dat is aangeboden aan de Tweede Kamer.

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