In proceedings on the merits, it was established that most of Cross Option's claims lacked grounds, with one exception: ING Bank had failed to provide Extra Clearing with sufficient securities which were required by Extra Clearing's customers to hedge option positions. In follow-up proceedings to determine the amount of damages, Cross Options claimed that it had suffered losses as it was not only a shareholder of Extra Clearing but also one of its customers. In these proceedings, both the Amsterdam District Court and the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam found that Cross Options failed to prove that it had actually suffered any losses. Cross Options appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court. In a judgment dated 29 September 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed in full the Cross Options appeal in cassation.
Read the full decision of the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam and the Supreme Court here and here (in Dutch).