Articles

Equity-arrangement (“overwaarde-arrangement”) always requires cooperation by the debtor

Equity-arrangement (“overwaarde-arrangement”) always requires cooperation by the debtor

Equity-arrangement (“overwaarde-arrangement”) always requires cooperation by the debtor

08.11.2015 NL law

In its judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3023) of 16 October 2015, the Supreme Court further explained which conditions have to be met for an equity-arrangement to work as intended by the parties.

An equity-arrangement enables the lender to seek recovery from collateral provided by a debtor to another lender, which is not fully used by this other lender, in the event a debtor is declared bankrupt. This arrangement is always combined with a contract of surety (“borgtocht”). Each lender agrees to stand surety towards the other lender(s) for the payment of all claims that the other lender(s) have – or will have in the future – against the debtor. The parties agree that a lender is never liable under this surety for more than the amount he can recover from the debtor with the recourse action (“regresvordering”) after payment has been made to the other lender(s).

The above arrangement will only work if the recourse action is covered by the collateral provided by the debtor to the lender who has paid under the contract of surety to the other lender(s). There was some concern that the fixation principle would prevent this. This principle entails that the estate in bankruptcy (“faillissementsboedel”) stays intact from the date the debtor has been declared bankrupt.

In a previous judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO7575) dated 9 July 2004 (Bannenberg), the Supreme Court decided that an equity-arrangement works if the debtor has accepted the obligation to satisfy the recourse action in a contract. If this is the case, the recourse action is a claim that already (conditionally) exists when the debtor is declared bankrupt and is therefore more than only a future claim. As a consequence, it is clear that the fixation principle does not prevent the recourse action from being covered by the collateral.

However, it was unclear what would happen if the debtor had not entered a contract to accept the obligation to satisfy the recourse action. There was also some doubt about whether the Supreme Court had revoked its decision in the Bannenberg case by its judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BU3784) of 6 April 2012 (ASR/Achmea). In the ASR/Achmea-judgment, the Supreme Court decided that the recourse claim of the surety which arises from the law, is only a future claim until the moment of payment by the surety.

With its judgment of 16 October 2015, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the equity-arrangement always needs the cooperation of the debtor. However, it is sufficient that the debtor enters as a party to the arrangement or to the contract of surety concluded by the lenders. Therefore, it is not necessary for the debtor to enter into a contract to accept the obligation to satisfy the recourse action. Without the debtor having accepted this obligation by contract, the recourse action is a future claim but that will not prevent the arrangement from working if the debtor has entered as a party to the arrangement or the surety.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that the trustee in bankruptcy can annul the cooperation by the debtor with the Paulian action if the requirements for this action are met. In that case, the arrangement will not have the intended effect.

Finally, it is now clear that the Supreme Court did not revoke its Bannenberg-judgment with its ASR/Achmea-judgment. According to the Supreme Court, these judgments simply relate to different cases. The ASR/Achmea-judgment concerned a recourse action arising from the law. Such a recourse action is not an existing claim but a future claim that will only arise after payment. The Bannenberg-judgment concerned a recourse action accepted by a contract. Such a recourse action is a (conditional) claim that already exists before payment.

The post “Equity-arrangement” (overwaarde-arrangement) always requires cooperation by the debtor” is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl.

Related news

17.09.2021 NL law
Illusies van een dashboardsamenleving

Articles - Steven Hijink plaatst in zijn column in Ondernemingsrecht kritische kanttekeningen bij enkele aspecten van het voorontwerp voor de Wet toekomst accountancysector, dat op 9 juli 2021 is gepubliceerd.

Read more

03.09.2021 NL law
Don’t get scammed, and don’t let scammers scam: the legal framework for mistaken payments clarified

Short Reads - “Bol.com mistakes scammers for Brabantia and pays €750,000’’ read headlines in The Netherlands in May 2021. After receiving an e-mail written in flawed Dutch (with some English in between), Bol.com paid €750,493.09 to what it thought was a new bank account in Spain of an existing Dutch/Belgian supplier, Brabantia. The court ruled that Bol.com could not rely on the fact that the company had already paid the scammer pretending to be Brabantia and that Bol.com was therefore not discharged by payment (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:1528).

Read more

26.08.2021 BE law
Sarah De Wulf and Malik Baba co-authored a book dedicated to the legal aspects of the video-game industry

Articles - The book, entitled 'Legal Aspects of the video-game industry', provides a first answer to the most important legal questions that might arise in the lifecycle of a video-game company. These insights are intended to be applicable irrespective of jurisdictions, illustrated by real-life situations and easy to read for individuals without a legal background.

Read more

05.08.2021 NL law
Unauthorized representation: liability of the intermediary

Short Reads - This blog is one of the blogs in a series called “Commercial contracts in the Netherlands”. It is discussed as to under which circumstances third parties can hold the intermediary liable for damage suffered due to unauthorized representation, alongside discussion of the various legal bases for liability.

Read more