Skip to main content

How can we help you?

  • 30-10-2014

In a recent landmark judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the test that must be applied when determining whether a lender has validly required repayment of a loan prior to its specified maturity or made use of a right to cancel and require repayment of an uncommitted facility, or both (both referred to here as 'acceleration'). This judgment is important because it is the first of its kind and because it finally puts an end to more than a decade of uncertainty: uncertainty that was due, in part, to a judgment rendered by the Arnhem Court of Appeal in 2003.

The implications of the Supreme Court judgment for credit relationships between lenders and professional borrowers or (large) corporate borrowers (both referred to here as 'professional borrowers') are discussed below. First, we will briefly examine the 2003 Arnhem Court of Appeal judgment.

Please read more on this topic in our newsletter.

Cookie notice

We care about your privacy. We only use cookies strictly necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website. You can find more information on cookies and on how we handle your personal data in our Privacy and Cookie Policy.