Neodyum Miknatis
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
canli poker siteleri meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
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

20.01.2021 NL law
Het bezoldigingsverslag van beursvennootschappen

Articles - Boekjaar 2020 was het eerste jaar waarin beursvennootschappen verplicht waren om hun verslaggeving over beloningen in te richten in overeenstemming met de nieuwe eisen voor het door de herziene Europese richtlijn aandeelhoudersrechten (SRD II) geïntroduceerde bezoldigingsverslag.

Read more

14.12.2020 NL law
WAMCA: imperfections come to the surface

Short Reads - Dutch courts have not yet developed procedural rules for the WAMCA, the new Dutch regime for collective redress. This adds to pre-existing uncertainty around many procedural aspects of this new law. In my recent editorial for the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk Recht (Dutch Civil Law Review, only accessible with a WoltersKluwer Navigator subscription), I discuss recent court decisions and identify a few additional problems that are arising now that the WAMCA is being put to the test. Here’s a summary.

Read more