In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bankruptcy whereby the bankruptcy receiver has wrongfully collected receivables which were pledged to a secured creditor and the total value of the assets of the bankrupt estate was insufficient to pay all debts, the bankruptcy receiver was allowed to recover its salary from the proceeds of that wrongful collection with priority over the claim of that secured creditor.

Al sinds 2004 schrijft de MiFID richtlijn voor dat dat beleggingsondernemingen financiële instrumenten (waaronder verhandelbare derivaten) veilig en bankruptcy remote moeten aanhouden voor hun cliënten. In 2005 bleek waarom: bij het faillissement van Van der Hoop Bankiers bleek dat beleggers geen aanspraak meer hadden op hun derivaten, maar concurrent schuldeiser van de bank waren geworden.

De Minister van Justitie beloofde daarop met wettelijke bescherming te komen. Die is er nu.

Geen afgescheiden vermogen

In the event of bankruptcy, creditors are entitled to disclosure of the bookkeeping of the estate under certain conditions. In its decision dated 8 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:612), the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that this right is limited and depends on the purpose of the disclosure. Creditors are not entitled to disclosure if the purpose is to retrieve information to support their claim against a third party.

In its 18 December 2015 ABN/Marell judgement, the Dutch Supreme Court held that if secured debt is pledged, the holder of that right of pledge has the authority to enforce not only its own pledge but also the security connected with that pledged secured debt. Such chains of secured debt are not uncommon, but often parties are not aware that they exist. According to this new case law, security down the chain can be used in the enforcement of the primary security.

On 5 February 2016 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the fact that a trustee in bankruptcy unlawfully collected pledged receivables has no consequences for the ranking of his salary. That the trustee in this case would profit from his unlawful behaviour (his salary is the highest ranking claim in a bankruptcy) is undesirable, but not enough reason to change the ranking.

Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court has given an interesting ruling relating to the consequences of commingling (vermenging) of multiple objects for a security right created over one of those objects.

Dutch Supreme Court 14 August 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2192)  

In a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)

Blog on The Hague Court of Appeal, 17 February 2015, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:281 (FGH Bank N.V. v. Aannemingsbedrijf Fraanje B.V.)

In a ruling dated 16 October 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the enforceability of security surplus arrangements in the event a security provider is declared bankrupt. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed that, unlike statutory recourse claims (regresrechten), contractual recourse claims can be construed in such a manner that they come into existence (as conditional claims) before payment by the guarantor of the debt owed by the debtor, after which they become unconditional.

In its judgment dated 2 September 2014, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that moveable assets obtained subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) should be considered future assets, and that ownership of such assets will be acquired after satisfaction of the relevant condition precedent (typically, full payment of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before acquiring ownership of such assets.