Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library
Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library
Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
11. F<strong>in</strong>ancial Collateral Arrangements and <strong>Party</strong> <strong>Autonomy</strong><br />
with the collateral as though its absolute owner’. 52 This might be problematic<br />
under Dutch law <strong>in</strong> cases where a security right has been created<br />
(as opposed to transfer arrangements) because a pledgee may generally<br />
only sell the relevant assets and keep the proceeds of the sale up to the<br />
amount of the secured liabilities. However, if the arrangement qualifies<br />
as a f<strong>in</strong>ancial collateral arrangement, the Dutch legislation implement<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the Collateral Directive would enable the secured party to appropriate<br />
the collateral or to set off the secured obligations aga<strong>in</strong>st the value of the<br />
collateral. The most important Dutch law provision that has been disapplied<br />
for this purpose is the prohibition on appropriation 53 of the pledged<br />
securities which would normally apply pursuant to article 3:235 of the<br />
Dutch Civil Code. 54 Consequently, there appear to be no restrictions <strong>in</strong><br />
comparison with the possibilities that the secured party has under English<br />
law <strong>in</strong> this respect. Even <strong>in</strong> terms of enforcement, there would seem to be<br />
party autonomy and very few restrictions <strong>in</strong>deed (if any).<br />
11.3.7. F<strong>in</strong>al remarks<br />
There are three further issues that have not yet been discussed and that<br />
will only be briefly touched upon here. The first is that a choice of jurisdiction<br />
for applicable law should preferably be accompanied by a submission<br />
to the jurisdiction of the relevant courts. An English court apply<strong>in</strong>g English<br />
law is probably preferable to a Dutch court hav<strong>in</strong>g to apply English<br />
law (simply because it will be more difficult for the Dutch court to fully<br />
grasp what English law entails). This generally does not cause any prob-<br />
52<br />
Hudson 2009, § 45-61.<br />
53<br />
The term ‘appropriation’ is used here to <strong>in</strong>dicate that the collateral taker takes<br />
the relevant collateral as his or her own upon enforcement and sets off the<br />
secured obligations aga<strong>in</strong>st the value of the collateral, without be<strong>in</strong>g under<br />
the obligation to sell or otherwise realize the collateral.<br />
54<br />
Nor is there a general right of appropriation under English law. Appropriation<br />
as a new remedy for the secured creditor has been <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> England pursuant<br />
to the Collateral Directive. See Joanna Benjam<strong>in</strong>, ‘F<strong>in</strong>ancial Collateral<br />
Arrangements: Lessons from Cukurova’, Insolvency Intelligence, 2008, 21(5),<br />
pp. 65-72. The article also offers a view on what is required for the appropriation<br />
of f<strong>in</strong>ancial collateral.<br />
Re<strong>in</strong>out M. Wibier<br />
247<br />
© sellier. european law publishers<br />
www.sellier.de