Short Reads

District Court of Amsterdam: The requirements imposed by law on assignment of claims for deprivation of voting rights on shares are largely the same as the requirements for claims for compulsory transfer of shares

Deprivation of voting rights on shares

District Court of Amsterdam: The requirements imposed by law on assignment of claims for deprivation of voting rights on shares are largely the same as the requirements for claims for compulsory transfer of shares

19.12.2016 NL law

That the corporate interests of a company are harmed through the actions of a pledgee holding the voting rights in respect of shares, does not in it itself increase support for a claim for deprivation of such voting rights as would be the case when claiming compulsory transfer of the actual shares - on the contrary, it appears.

Amsterdam District Court 4 May 2016 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:5819).

The relevant facts in this judgment are that the shares in the Dutch company were held by the claimant and a third party, who were both also the managing directors of the company. The company was party to a junior loan agreement. As security for the obligations under this junior loan agreement, the shareholders of the company  granted, among other things, a right of pledge over the shares in the company in favour of a well-known financial institution. Following an event of default which is continuing, under the junior loan agreement, the voting rights on the shares were transferred to the financial institution.

After several years, the financial institution was requested by the claimant and its co-director to cooperate in convening a formal shareholders' meeting on a number of matters, including the dismissal of the claimant and its co-director as directors of the company and the subsequent appointment of new directors. The financial institution refused,  stating it was not in the corporate interests of the company to replace the directors and that the voting rights did not permit it to convene a formal shareholders' meeting. The claimant asked the court to rule that the decision reached by the financial institution was not in the company’s best interests and that it was no longer possible to expect the financial institution to reasonably exercise its voting rights. The claimant requested the financial institution be deprived of its voting rights and that such voting rights be transferred back to the company's shareholders.

The court ruled that the requirements the law imposes on assignment of a claim for deprivation of voting rights are not materially different to the requirements for a claim for compulsory transfer of shares. The standard of conduct for either claim is composed of the following three elements: (i) it must concern conduct of the shareholder or pledgee, (ii) which harms the corporate interest of the company in such a way that (iii) exercising the voting rights on the shares by either the shareholder or pledgee can no longer be reasonably expected to continue. The second element in this standard of conduct is difficult to fulfil under both types of claim, as the pledgee has a legitimate (financial and practical) interest vested in the use of the voting rights. The court acknowledged that this interest may not always coincide with the interests of the company, but held that the corporate interest must sometimes give way to the vested  interests of the pledgee in order to prevent the erosion of a share pledge as a form of security in financial transactions. In light of this judgment, caution should be exercised when assessing whether the conduct of a pledgee damages the company's corporate interests in such a way that its voting rights should be transferred back to the shareholders.

Team

Related news

07.08.2019 NL law
Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal in Global Legal Insights - FinTech Edition 2019

Articles - Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal have contributed to the 2019 FinTech edition of Global Legal Insights (GLI), providing the Netherlands chapter. The GLI FinTech 2019 edition covers approaches and developments in the FinTech sector with respect to regulatory and insurance technology, regulatory bodies, key regulations and regulatory approaches, restrictions and cross-border business in 26 jurisdictions.

Read more

26.07.2019 NL law
Voortgang UBO-register en Centraal aandeelhoudersregister

Short Reads - De Vierde Anti-witwasrichtlijn (nr. 2015/849) zoals gewijzigd door de Vijfde Anti-witwasrichtlijn (EU/2018/843) dient uiterlijk op 10 januari 2020 in de Nederlandse wet- en regelgeving geïmplementeerd te zijn. Hiertoe is op 3 april 2019 een wetsvoorstel bij de Tweede Kamer ingediend. Het initiatiefwetsvoorstel ter invoering van het Centraal aandeelhoudersregister wordt op dit moment behandeld door de Tweede Kamer. In deze Update geven wij een overzicht van de laatste ontwikkelingen.

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