umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

12.03.2021 LU law
Stibbe Luxembourg lawyers co-author the SFDR Implementation Guide

Articles - Edouard d'Anterroches, Audrey Jarreton and Nicolas Pradel co-authored the SFDR Implementation Guide published on 9 March 2021 by the Association des Banques et Banquiers, Luxembourg (ABBL), the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI) and the Association des Companies d’Assurances et de Réassurances (ACA) for the use of their members.

Read more

24.02.2021 NL law
How certain elements of the Dutch scheme may (or may not) affect ISDA Master Agreements

Articles - On 1 January 2021, the legislative framework for court-approved restructurings of debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (hereafter referred to as the ‘Dutch scheme’, or simply, the ‘scheme’) entered into force. Under the Dutch scheme a debt restructuring plan can be submitted to the creditors for voting, whereby a majority can bind a minority within each class of creditors and the competent court has the power to make the plan binding on dissenting classes of creditors.

Read more

11.03.2021 NL law
Financial Regulatory – Update Q1 2021

Short Reads - Traditionally, 1 January (and 1 July) each year is a date on which new Dutch financial regulations enter into force. This year, the amendments to the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht – “Wft”) are relatively few, but other notable developments are worthy of attention.

Read more

22.02.2021 EU law
EU Regulator’s response to the Reddit rally

Short Reads - A massive stock market rally recently suddenly developed with respect to GameStop’s shares, a moribund chain of video game stores in the United States. The instigators: users of the investment forum r/wallstreetbets on Reddit. On 17 February 2021, the European Securities and Markets Authority delivered its strongest warning yet about the risks of using social media for investing, cautioning that any effort to coordinate trades online could violate EU market abuse regulations.

Read more