Short Reads

Can an SPV be misled before it exists?

Can an SPV be misled before it exists?

Can an SPV be misled before it exists?

31.07.2018

Transactions are regularly structured through special purpose vehicles (SPVs). An SPV is often established at the end of the negotiations, just before signing the agreement. The other party to the agreement provides information and raises certain expectations during the negotiations. The individuals negotiating for the SPV do not necessarily become officers of the SPV once it is established.

Examples of legal structures using SPVs are:

  • contracts to design, build, finance, maintain and operate (DBFMO contracts);
  • securitizations;
  • mergers & acquisitions.

After having entered into the agreement, the SPV may discover that the other party withheld certain information during the negotiations, thereby violating a disclosure obligation. The other party may have also made false statements. This may result in the SPV having a less favourable position that originally intended. Can the SPV then invoke error? Or is this not possible, as the SPV did not exist during the negotiations?

The same questions apply to the interpretation of the contract. Can an SPV rely on expectations about the meaning of certain provisions if they were raised before the SPV was established?

In the 2017-2018 Proceedings of the Dutch Association of Corporate Litigation (Geschriften vanwege de Vereniging Corporate Litigation, published end of July 2018) I defend the position that an SPV has pre-contractual rights. It would be unacceptable for the other party to an agreement to have a licence to provide incorrect information. Although many lawyers would probably agree with this position, the legal grounds for the pre-contractual rights of a non-existing party are not clear. In my contribution to the Proceedings, I examine three legal grounds:

  1. acting on behalf of a legal entity in formation;
  2. acting on behalf of a principal whose name will be given in due time;
  • attribution of knowledge.

My conclusion is that one size does not fit all. Different legal grounds will apply in different situations, and a broad interpretation or analogous application will often be required. But the SPV certainly need not remain empty-handed.

For more information with regard to this subject, please contact Branda Katan.

Team

Related news

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

11.04.2019 NL law
The Dutch UBO register will be introduced in January 2020

Short Reads - On 4 April 2019, a legislative proposal to implement the Dutch Ultimate Beneficial Owner (''UBO'') register (''UBO register'') was submitted to the Dutch parliament. The obligation to introduce a UBO register derives from the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Approximately 1.5 million Dutch legal entities must register information on their UBOs in this register.

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

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

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