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)

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.

In a judgment dated 20 March 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that all banks and intermediaries involved in the execution of a bank transfer, including the bank responsible for recording receipt of the bank transfer into the account held with it by the payee, qualify as parties whose services are directly or indirectly used by the payor in connection with the bank transfer.

On 27 May 2015, the bill for the Act implementing the European framework for the recovery and resolution of banks and investment firms (the "Implementation Act") and the explanatory memorandum thereto (the "Explanatory Memorandum") were published. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRMR").

Introduction

1.   Introduction

On 21 November 2014 the draft Dutch Implementation Act for the European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Banks and Investment Firms (the "Implementation Act") and draft guidelines were published for public consultation purposes. The Implementation Act is designed to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and to apply the Single Resolution Mechanism ("SRM").

De Hoge Raad heeft recent meer duidelijkheid gegeven over de positie van een pandhouder in het kader van een met de pandgever afgesproken opheffingsuitverkoop. Zowel het regime van parate executie en de wettelijke grenzen die aan verrekening in faillissement worden gesteld kwamen aan de orde in dit arrest. Kort gezegd: een afspraak dat executie via een opheffingsverkoop plaatsvindt kan zonder enig risico worden gemaakt.

Recent developments

In recent years Dutch banks have established a practice of creating undisclosed rights of pledge (stil pandrecht) on all current and future receivables of their borrowers in an easy way and without the borrower's involvement. In the Supreme Court's ruling of 3 February 2012 (HR 3 February 2012, LJN BT6947), this practice was unsuccessfully put to the test by a bankruptcy trustee, who contested the alleged right of pledge of ING Bank on receivables of its bankrupt client.