Short Reads

Collective action on interest rate swaps dismissed by District Court

Collective action on interest rate swaps dismissed by District Court

Collective action on interest rate swaps dismissed by District Court

21.07.2016 NL law

On 29 June 2016 the District Court of Oost-Brabant (“the District Court”) dismissed a collective action concerning SME entrepreneurs who had entered into interest rate swap agreements with Rabobank.

(ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:3383).

The District Court ruled that the claims were inadmissible because the interests of the SME entrepreneurs were not sufficiently safeguarded and the action did not aim to protect similar interests.

Background of the claims

The action was initiated by ‘Stichting Renteswapschadeclaim’ (“the claim entity”) and concerned, among other things, Rabobank’s interest rate swap service provisions from 2005 to 2008. The claim entity submitted various claims, mainly invoking error, breach of contract and tort, arguing that Rabobank had not fulfilled its duty of care towards the SME entrepreneurs.

Requirements for the admissibility of a collective action

A collective action can be based on article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code. Under this article, a claim entity can start a collective action to protect similar interests of other persons if its articles of association promote such interests. The action needs to be preceded by consultations and the interests of the persons on whose behalf the action is instituted need to be sufficiently safeguarded. In its judgment, the District Court elaborated on these requirements.

The inadmissibility of the collective action brought by ‘Stichting Renteswapschadeclaim’

The District Court agreed with the arguments advanced by Rabobank that the claim entity had not sufficiently attempted to achieve the objective of the action through consultation. However, this reason alone was not enough for the District Court to dismiss the collective action. The District Court also ruled that Rabobank’s interests were not harmed, because it was apparent during the court hearing that the parties would not have reached a settlement anyway.

Rabobank further argued that the interests of the aggrieved SME entrepreneurs were insufficiently safeguarded. It stated that the claim entity had not complied with the Claim Code and was mainly commercially driven. The Claim Code is a self-regulatory document that provides guidelines for claim entities. The District Court concluded that the claim entity had not complied with the provisions of this Code and noted in particular that there was a concentration of power with the chairman of the entity. As a result, there were few safeguards in place to prevent the chairman from prioritizing his own personal interests above the interests of the aggrieved. The District Court therefore ruled that the collective action was inadmissible. Rabobank also argued that the action did not aim to protect sufficiently similar interests. This requirement can only be met when it is possible to rule on the collective claims in the same proceedings, without taking individual circumstances into account (ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK5756). According to the District Court, the wrongfulness of Rabobank’s actions could not be assessed without taking the individual circumstances of each SME entrepreneur and the individual nature of Rabobank’s defence arguments into account. Also, the conduct of the different Rabobank branches was not sufficiently uniform. Therefore, the claims could not be dealt with collectively.

In short

This judgment is an important signal that collective actions cannot be used to resolve each and every mass damage case. Some cases – like this case on interest rate swaps – may not be suitable for collective adjudication. The judgment also reflects the development of increasing scrutiny towards the entities that bring collective actions. 

Related news

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

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

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

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

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

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

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