Short Reads

Dutch Supreme Courts decides that pledgees are entitled to execute security rights that are connected to a pledged claim (confirmation of Rabobank/Stormpolder)

Dutch Supreme Courts decides that pledgees are entitled to execute security rights that are connected to a pledged claim (confirmation of Rabobank/Stormpolder)

Dutch Supreme Courts decides that pledgees are entitled to execute security rights that are connected to a pledged claim (confirmation of Rabobank/Stormpolder)

15.04.2016 NL law

On 18 December 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3619) which is important for the Dutch banking practice. In its ruling, which concerned a matter between ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and Aannemersbedrijf Marell B.V., the Dutch Supreme Court held that a pledgee collecting a pledged claim is entitled to execute security rights that are connected to such claims.

The Dutch Supreme Court referred to its judgment of 11 March 2005 (ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AS2619, Rabobank/Stormpolder) in which it decided that a person who has attached a claim is entitled to benefit from security rights that are connected to the attached claim and benefit from the ranking of the security rights. The judgement of 18 December 2015 confirms the decision in Rabobank/Stormpolder and what has become established law in Dutch legal literature.

In order to further explain the judgment, the relevant facts of the case are set out below. Marell Beton- en Bekistingswerken B.V. (formerly Aannemersbedrijf Marell B.V.) (“Marell”) owed Pegas approximately EUR 750,000 (the Pegas Claim). As security for the repayment of the Pegas Claim, Marell granted an undisclosed right of pledge on the claims on all of its present and future debtors. Pegas entered into a financing arrangement with ABN AMRO (the ABN Claim). As security for the repayment of the ABN Claim, Pegas provided an undisclosed right of pledge on its claims on present and future debtors which included the Pegas Claim.

Pegas refused to repay ABN AMRO. ABN AMRO subsequently disclosed its pledge on the Pegas Claim to Marell. Before the disclosure of the right of pledge, only Pegas was entitled to collect the Pegas Claim. After the disclosure, ABN AMRO became entitled to collect the claim. As a consequence, Marell was entitled to repay the Pegas Claim to ABN AMRO only. When Marell did not pay, ABN AMRO – on behalf of Pegas – notified the debtors of Marell of the Pegas Pledge that they were only entitled to repay Marell by paying the amount due into the bank account of ABN AMRO.

The newly incorporated company Aannemersbedrijf Marell B.V. (“Marell New”) disputed the notification from ABN AMRO regarding the Pegas Pledge and initiated legal proceedings against ABN AMRO. Initially, Marell New argued that some of the debtors that were notified of the Pegas Pledge were debtors of Marell New instead of Marell and these claims were not pledged by the Pegas Pledge. According to the court, the statement that the claims belonged to Marell New instead of Marell was not supported by the facts. Marell New filed an appeal against this judgement. During the appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that ABN AMRO was not entitled to notify the debtors of Marell because it was not entitled to execute the Pegas Pledge in the first place. According to the Court of Appeal, only was entitled to notify the debtors of Marell because only Pegas was entitled to execute the pledge.

ABN AMRO disagreed with the final decision by the Court of Appeal and filed an appeal with the Dutch Supreme Court. In the appeal, ABN AMRO argued that it was entitled to execute the Pegas Pledge because it is entitled to benefit from security rights that are connected to claims pledged in favour of ABN AMRO.

According to the Dutch Supreme Court, ABN AMRO was indeed authorized to notify the debtors of Marell about the Pegas Pledge and collect the outstanding amounts from the debtors and use these proceeds as payment under the ABN Claim. The right to benefit from the security rights that are attached to the Pegas Claim is limited the amount of the original claim. This means that ABN AMRO could only claim a maximum amount of EUR 750,000 from the debtors of Marell. In the event the debtors paid a higher amount, ABN AMRO would be obliged to pay the remainder to Marell.

In its judgement the Supreme Court thus confirmed that a person who has either pledged or attached a claim is entitled to benefit from security rights that are connected to the attached or pledged claim and to benefit from the ranking of the security rights as well.

The post Dutch Supreme Courts decides that pledgees are entitled to execute security rights that are connected to a pledged claim (confirmation of Rabobank/Stormpolder) is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl

Related news

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Termination of an agreement: compelling grounds?

Short Reads - When does a reason given for termination of an agreement qualify as a compelling ground? That was the central question in the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:446). Depending on the nature of the agreement and the circumstances of the case, termination may only take place under certain conditions, e.g. only on compelling grounds. 

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

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