Short Reads

Court of Appeal: Deed of pledge does not cover all present receivables

's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal 17 October 2017 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:

Court of Appeal: Deed of pledge does not cover all present receivables

11.04.2018 NL law

's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal denies pledgee's claim that all present and future receivables of the pledgor were pledged to it by a deed of pledge dated 20 January 2014 and ruled that the receivables listed in the schedule attached to the deed of pledge were leading to establish on which receivables a right of pledge was created.

's Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal, 17 October 2017 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:4570)

Under a bilateral contract between [Recycling] Recycling B.V. (Recycling) and [Beheer] Beheer B.V. (Beheer), Recycling agreed to deliver and dispatch containers filled with waste for Beheer. Recycling sent seven invoices to Beheer for services rendered. [Holding] Holding B.V. (Holding) had a claim against Recycling.

On 20 January 2014, Recycling and Holding entered into a deed of pledge under which Recycling created an undisclosed right of pledge (stil pandrecht) in favour of Holding on its outstanding claims up to that date amounting to a total of EUR 6,059,324.79. The outstanding claims were listed in a schedule attached to the deed. Of the seven claims of Recycling against Beheer (corresponding with the invoices previously sent), only four were mentioned in the schedule. The deed was registered with the Dutch Tax Authorities on 27 January 2014.

On 27 January 2014, Recycling (again) pledged its outstanding claims to Holding, amounting to a total of EUR 6,353,11846. This time all seven claims against Beheer were listed in the schedule attached to the deed of pledge. The deed of pledge dated 27 January 2014 was sent by post on the same date to the Dutch Tax Authorities, which registered the deed on 30 January 2014. Recycling was declared bankrupt on 28 January 2014.

A few aspects of Dutch law are relevant. First, a deed of pledge of receivables must be registered with the Dutch tax authorities to validly create an undisclosed right of pledge over receivables. Secondly, as a result of the declaration of bankruptcy, a debtor forfeits the right to legally dispose of and administer property, rights and interests comprised in the bankruptcy with effect from and including the day on which the bankruptcy order is pronounced.

The Court of Appeal held that since the deed of pledge dated 27 January 2014 was sent by post to the Dutch Tax Authorities on the same day, the deed could not have been (considered to be) offered to the Dutch Tax Authorities earlier than 28 January 2014. As mentioned, Recycling was declared bankrupt on 28 January 2014, with effect from 00.00 hours. Therefore, the right of pledge purported to be established under the deed of pledge dated 27 January 2014 could no longer be validly created. The Court of Appeal ruled that the three claims of Recycling against Beheer that were listed in the deed of pledge of 27 January 2014 but not in the pledge of 20 January 2014, were therefore not validly pledged.

Holding stated that it was intended to pledge all claims of Recycling on Beheer by the deed of pledge of 20 January 2014 to Holding. The claims of Recycling on Beheer not listed in the schedule attached to the deed of pledge were therefore also pledged by the deed of pledge of 20 January 2014 according to Holding.

The Court of Appeal considered that as the undisclosed right of pledge over receivables was created by a deed of pledge including a schedule that explicitly lists the claims to be pledged, such list should be leading to establish over which receivables the security was created. It also observed that the deed of pledge of 20 January 2014 did not contain general wording that could suggest that a general pledge over all claims was created. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is not relevant that it was intended to pledge all claims and that by mistake some of the claims were not listed. The deed of pledge does not state that "all receivables as per 20 January 2014" are pledged. Instead it states that "the outstanding receivables per 20 January 2014 of a total amount of € 6.059.324,79" were pledged and that "these receivables are stated on the attached computer lists".

The ruling of the Court of Appeal demonstrates that if it is intended to pledge all receivables, this should be explicitly mentioned in the deed of pledge. In the absence of such general wording and by using a list of receivables the consequence is that the receivables pledged under that deed of pledge are limited to the receivables included in that list. Therefore, pledgees must ensure that (i) the deed of pledge contains a general pledge provision (all existing and future receivables); and (ii) if a schedule is attached to the deed, such list is complete and correct and that it is made clear that such list is not exhaustive.

Team

Related news

17.01.2020 LU law
Stibbe Luxembourg étend son offre de services par la venue de nouveaux associés et counsels au sein des pratiques spécialisées en gestion d’actifs/fonds d’investissement, en droit des sociétés ainsi qu’en droit financier

Inside Stibbe - Luxembourg, le 17 janvier 2020 – Stibbe renforce ses pratiques spécialisées en droit des sociétés, en droit financier ainsi qu’en gestion d’actifs/fonds d’investissement par la venue de Bernard Beerens (associé, droit des sociétés), Audrey Jarreton (counsel, droit bancaire et financier), Edouard d’Anterroches (associé, fonds d’investissement), Victorien Hémery (associé, fonds d’investissement) et Dayana Bert (counsel, fonds d’investissement).

Read more

20.01.2020 BE law
Most commonly used unregulated real estate investment vehicles in Belgium

Articles - On 1 January 2020, the mandatory provisions of the Code for Companies and Associations or "BCAC" entered into force. This article provides an overview of the main characteristics of the most commonly used unregulated real estate vehicles in Belgium (the regulated real estate vehicles are part of a separate publication that will be published shortly). It does not intend to provide a complete overview of all unregulated investment vehicles available, but it does give insight into the main characteristics of the most commonly used investment vehicles in Belgium.

Read more

17.01.2020 LU law
Stibbe boosts service offering in Luxembourg with new partners and counsel for asset management/funds and corporate & finance

Inside Stibbe - Luxembourg, 17 January 2020 – Stibbe reinforces its corporate & finance and asset management/funds practices in Luxembourg with the hire of Bernard Beerens (corporate partner), Audrey Jarreton (banking and finance counsel), Edouard d’Anterroches (investment funds partner), Victorien Hémery (investment funds partner), and Dayana Bert (investment funds counsel). Their arrival comes after the recent hire of tax partner Johan Léonard. All of these new additions demonstrate the firm’s commitment to expanding Stibbe’s service offering in Luxembourg.

Read more

15.01.2020 NL law
The Dutch scheme - a summary of the upcoming new restructuring tool

Short Reads - As mentioned in our earlier blog, the Dutch legislator has prepared a bill – the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord) – introducing a framework that allows debtors to restructure their debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (the “Dutch Scheme“). We expect this highly-anticipated bill to enter into force by this summer. The Dutch Scheme combines features from the UK Scheme of Arrangement and the US Chapter 11 proceedings. Below, we summarize certain key aspects of the Dutch Scheme.

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