Short Reads

Amsterdam Court of Appeal denies bank’s claim that it was entitled to cancel a credit facility on the basis of an allegedly unsatisfied condition precedent

Amsterdam Court of Appeal denies bank’s claim that it was entitled to cancel a credit facility on the basis of an allegedly unsatisfied condition precedent

Amsterdam Court of Appeal denies bank’s claim that it was entitled to cancel a credit facility on the basis of an allegedly unsatisfied condition precedent

14.04.2016 NL law

 

The bank argued that the client should have understood the condition precedent provision in such a manner that, given market practice, a satisfactory outcome of the bank’s internal credit verification process was part of the condition precedent. This argument did not uphold before the Court of Appeal.

Amsterdam Court of Appeal 9 February 2016 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:461)

 

In 2007 a Dutch bank entered into a credit facility agreement with its client under which an amount of EUR 10,000 was made available. By the end of that year, the client expressed its wish to expand its business and entered into negotiations with the bank about an increase of the credit facility. On 27 December 2007, the bank made a formal proposal to the client to amend the existing credit facility agreement resulting in an increase of the credit facility to EUR 50,000.

The amended credit facility agreement contained a provision stipulating that “the entry into of the credit facility agreement is subject to verification of [client] data”. The client informed the bank about the nature of its new business activities by an email dated 8 January 2008. The bank responded with a letter in which it argued that it had insufficient understanding of the relationship between payments received into the client’s bank account and the nature of the client’s business activities. The bank indicated that such lack of understanding posed a risk which could not have been foreseen at the time of the entry into of the credit facility agreement. Finally, the bank stated that it intended to terminate its relationship with the client and, as a result, the bank would no longer be obligated to provide loans under the credit facility agreement.

In response to these events, the client filed an application with the District Court against the bank claiming compensation for damages resulting from the bank’s failure to comply with its obligations under the credit facility agreement. The bank argued that it was under no obligation to provide loans under the credit facility agreement because, as indicated in its letter, the condition precedent had not been satisfied on the basis that its internal credit verification process had not been completed to its satisfaction. The District Court denied the claim.

Following an appeal by the client, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the bank was in a position to successfully invoke the condition precedent based on the bank's argument that its internal credit verification process had not been completed to its satisfaction. For this purpose, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the satisfactory completion of the bank’s internal credit verification process fell within the scope of the condition precedent. Given the fact that the verbatim wording of the condition precedent provision did not contain an explicit reference to the bank’s internal credit verification process, the Court of Appeal used the so-called “Haviltex-criterion”  to interpret the condition precedent provision. The bank argued that the client should have understood the condition precedent provision in such a manner that, given market practice, a satisfactory outcome of the bank’s internal credit verification process was part of the condition precedent. The client argued to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal rejected the bank's argument and held that the bank should have informed the client of the fact that its interpretation of the condition precedent provision implied a condition that the bank’s internal credit verification process had to be satisfactorily completed. On the basis of the court’s interpretation of the condition precedent provision, it ruled that the bank was not in a position to invoke the condition precedent.

The ruling of the Court of Appeal demonstrates that, in spite of market practice, a bank may not assume that a client shares its understanding of a condition precedent provision. Therefore, banks must ensure that any condition precedent provision is phrased with as much clarity as possible.

Related news

10.08.2020 NL law
ISDA kondigt publicatie van Adjusted RFRs, wijziging van de 2006 Definitions en IBOR Fallback Protocol aan

Short Reads - In twee in juli verschenen persberichten kondigt ISDA (i) de aanvang van de berekening en publicatie door Bloomberg van zogenaamde 'Fallback Rates' voor een aantal bestaande IBORs en (ii) de voorgenomen publicatie door ISDA van gewijzigde 'rate options' in de 2006 Definitions en het langverwachte IBOR Fallback Protocol aan.

Read more

21.07.2020 NL law
Financiële sector moet klimaatrisico’s bespreken met klanten

Short Reads - Financiële instellingen moeten in gesprekken met klanten aandacht besteden aan klimaatrisico’s. Bij zakelijke klanten met name over de mogelijke impact van klimaatrisico’s op hun bedrijfsvoering en bij hypotheekeigenaren bijvoorbeeld over de verduurzaming van hun woning. Ook in het licht van het Klimaatcommitment van de financiële sector is dit van belang. Dit blijkt uit een bloemlezing van acht Nederlandse financiële instellingen, verenigd onder het Platform voor Duurzame financiering.

Read more

29.06.2020 NL law
European Banking Federation Guidance on testing of Cloud Exit Strategy

Short Reads - Financial institutions may outsource critical or important functions to cloud service providers (“CSPs”). On 25 February 2019 the European Banking Authority (“EBA”) provided guidelines (the “EBA Guidelines”) laying out the framework for outsourcing arrangements. The EBA Guidelines require institutions to have a comprehensive, documented and sufficiently tested exit strategy (including a mandatory exit plan) when they outsource critical or important functions.

Read more

29.06.2020 NL law
Nieuwe publicaties van het netwerk van centrale banken en toezichthouders

Short Reads - Het Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) benadrukt opnieuw het toenemende belang van klimaatverandering voor centrale banken en toezichthouders. Klimaatverandering leidt tot financiële risico’s en dat betekent dat centrale banken en toezichthouders klimaat- en milieugerelateerde risico’s in hun beleid en toezicht moeten integreren.

Read more