Articles

Dutch Supreme Court addresses the status of a right of pledge after commingling of property

Dutch Supreme Court addresses the status of a right of pledge after commingling of property

Dutch Supreme Court addresses the status of a right of pledge after commingling of property

22.12.2015 NL law

Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court has given an interesting ruling relating to the consequences of commingling (vermenging) of multiple objects for a security right created over one of those objects.

 
 

 

 

Dutch Supreme Court 14 August 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2192)

 

 

The central question in this ruling was: has a right of pledge become extinct by the commingling of two objects which are held by one and the same owner, one of which is encumbered with said right of pledge? The Supreme Court ruled that in such a case, a new right of pledge is created by operation of law over a share in the new object which has been created by the commingling.

When Zalco, an aluminium company, was declared bankrupt on 13 December 2011, a quantity of fluid aluminium was present in its smelting furnaces. A few weeks earlier, a right of pledge had been created over this in favour of Glencore, a commodity trading company. When production ceased shortly after the bankruptcy date, the aluminium in the smelting furnaces solidified. Glencore claimed that it had a right of pledge over a share in the (solidified) aluminium. Two other creditors, NB and ZSP, took the position that such right of pledge had become extinct by accession (natrekking) to the smelting furnaces or the factory or by commingling (vermenging) of the aluminium with other quantities of aluminium prior to its solidification. 

The judge in preliminary relief proceedings considered these facts and decided that the aluminium had become a part of the factory, in other words an immovable object, by accession. According to Dutch law, a right of pledge cannot validly exist over an immovable object, and thus the right of pledge had become extinct. The Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion, reasoning that the right of pledge had become extinct as a result of commingling the pledged objects with the other objects. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that in such cases, a new right of pledge is created by operation of law over a share in the object resulting from the commingling in favour of the previous holder of the right of pledge.

This judgment is relevant for the Dutch finance practice because it removes much uncertainty about the status of a right of pledge in the situation described above. Before this judgment, in cases of commingling of objects, a discrepancy was perceived between the status of objects supplied subject to retention of title and the status of a right of pledge. It could previously be argued that, upon commingling of the objects, a retention of title arrangement would grant the supplier a right of co-ownership in the new object proportionate to his original quantity, whereas a right of pledge would become extinct. This judgment harmonises both security interests, in the sense that a new right of pledge is created by operation of law over the new object, the size of which corresponds with the relative size of the extinct object.

This judgment is also relevant because it confirms that a new right of pledge is created by operation of law, which means that the bankruptcy of the owner whose objects are commingled does not preclude the valid creation of such right of pledge after bankruptcy of the person who had created the original right of pledge.

The Supreme Court ruling provides a new rule where the Dutch Civil Code is silent. In the Supreme Court's own words: "Although this is not explicitly regulated in said provisions, it is consistent with the content and meaning of those provisions that they also cover the case at hand of commingling of similar objects, one of which is encumbered with a right of pledge."

This article was published in the Banking and Finance Update of December 2015.

Related news

21.03.2019 NL law
15 aspects of Brexit you did not know

Short Reads - A Brexit without a deal, or with a deal that does not cover all relevant aspects, is still a potential scenario. We have highlighted a number of unexpected legal consequences of Brexit in such a no deal or incomplete deal scenario.

Read more

22.02.2019 BE law
Lost your passport - How a hard Brexit will affect UK financial institutions’ access to the Belgian financial market

Articles - FSMA gives local guidance - Belgian legislature prepares contingency measures The UK is due to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. Unless specific arrangements granting the UK at least a temporary status quo will be adopted before 29 March 2019, the UK financial industry will be considered third-country entities and will therefore be seriously restricted in carrying on their activities in the EEA, including Belgium.

Read more

12.03.2019 LU law
Entry into force of the RBE Regulation and update

Articles - The Grand-Ducal Regulation of 15 February 2019 on the registration, payment of administrative fees and access to information recorded in the register of beneficial owners (the “RBE Regulation”) entered into force on 1 March 2019 and depicts the practical aspects of the Law of 13 January 2019 establishing a beneficial owner register (the “RBE Law”). Another document, the LBR Circular 19/01 (the “Circular”) issued by the Luxembourg Business Registers on 25 February 2019  further describes the new register of beneficial owners (the “RBE”) with the aim of helping users. 

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring