Obbligazioni perpetue e subordinate SNS Reeal in diretta: storia di un esproprio - Notizie, informazioni e commenti

[discipline]

Si, dovrebbe essere il testo di difesa del ministero, in cui si esplicita che la proposta di cvc era inaccettabile e si sarebbe tradotta in un rischio elevato per lo stato olandese.

Qualche passaggio colto e tradotto en passant dalle conclusioni:

22.1.9: The conclusion is that the minister should nationalize, despite the movement of capital, as long as he was in the exercise of that power, but would not discriminate on the basis of nationality or otherwise would violate the European freedoms. The Minister has not discriminated against, also witnessed the many nationalities of the appellants.

22.1.11: The nationalization seeks to avert a serious and immediate threat to the stability of the Dutch financial system. If the Council considers that the contested decision is indeed on that account could be taken, is thus given that this measure was taken on grounds of public policy. If the Council considers that the stability of the Dutch financial system is not or not sufficiently at stake, then the Council's decision to destroy and she comes to assessment under Article 63 TFEU does not matter.

22.1.12: The expropriation is done because of the impending collapse of SNS Bank and SNS REAAL. The exception of paragraph 1 b as a measure to prevent infringements of national law and regulations relating to the prudential supervision of financial institutions doing here so for.

22.2.1: Brigade (chapter 3, page 21 t / m 24) argues that the contested decision would be contrary to state aid rules. This is incorrect. Brigade fails in its complaint that the expropriation itself is not state aid, and that the contested decision aid rules - including the standstill obligation where they invoke them - not applicable. The announced capital injection into the SNS REAAL Group and other measures do constitute State aid. They are therefore immediately to the European Commission. Breach of state aid rules does not apply. Also on the basis of the State aid rules may Brigade no arguments to construct the decision (successfully) to attack them.

22.4.1: In the occupation number 189 is also argued that Article 6:1 paragraph 4 FSA would be contrary to the principle of due process and fair play, since it would entail that an action against the contested decision void. This position is based on an incorrect reading of the law. Article 6:1 paragraph 4 Wft not deprive stakeholders the opportunity to appeal against the decision on expropriation to appeal, since that provision relates only to immediate relief. The expropriation is based on Article 6:2 Wft.

22.4.2.: In the profession with number 226 is argued that the shares of that person would be expropriated investment account. The contested decision will be holders of shares of SNS REAAL and the extent appellant holder of such shares, the decision has consequences. Shares in other companies through a brokerage account will not be affected by the decision

23 Conclusion
23.1 The decision is not eligible for destruction [annullamento, opposizione suppongo]. The Minister requested the Department Your actions as unfounded; legal costs [charged]

Cos'è sta roba poi alle pp.66/67 con riferimento ai cittadini italiani??
13.1.2 Effects by foreigners, such as Italian citizens are held, may be expropriated. These are securities issued by a company established in the Netherlands, and that under Article 6:2 paragraph 1 Wft decisive.

 

[ferdo]

Qualche passaggio colto e tradotto en passant dalle conclusioni:

22.1.9: The conclusion is that the minister should nationalize, despite the movement of capital, as long as he was in the exercise of that power, but would not discriminate on the basis of nationality or otherwise would violate the European freedoms. The Minister has not discriminated against, also witnessed the many nationalities of the appellants.

22.1.11: The nationalization seeks to avert a serious and immediate threat to the stability of the Dutch financial system. If the Council considers that the contested decision is indeed on that account could be taken, is thus given that this measure was taken on grounds of public policy. If the Council considers that the stability of the Dutch financial system is not or not sufficiently at stake, then the Council's decision to destroy and she comes to assessment under Article 63 TFEU does not matter.

22.1.12: The expropriation is done because of the impending collapse of SNS Bank and SNS REAAL. The exception of paragraph 1 b as a measure to prevent infringements of national law and regulations relating to the prudential supervision of financial institutions doing here so for.

22.2.1: Brigade (chapter 3, page 21 t / m 24) argues that the contested decision would be contrary to state aid rules. This is incorrect. Brigade fails in its complaint that the expropriation itself is not state aid, and that the contested decision aid rules - including the standstill obligation where they invoke them - not applicable. The announced capital injection into the SNS REAAL Group and other measures do constitute State aid. They are therefore immediately to the European Commission. Breach of state aid rules does not apply. Also on the basis of the State aid rules may Brigade no arguments to construct the decision (successfully) to attack them.

22.4.1: In the occupation number 189 is also argued that Article 6:1 paragraph 4 FSA would be contrary to the principle of due process and fair play, since it would entail that an action against the contested decision void. This position is based on an incorrect reading of the law. Article 6:1 paragraph 4 Wft not deprive stakeholders the opportunity to appeal against the decision on expropriation to appeal, since that provision relates only to immediate relief. The expropriation is based on Article 6:2 Wft.

22.4.2.: In the profession with number 226 is argued that the shares of that person would be expropriated investment account. The contested decision will be holders of shares of SNS REAAL and the extent appellant holder of such shares, the decision has consequences. Shares in other companies through a brokerage account will not be affected by the decision

23 Conclusion
23.1 The decision is not eligible for destruction [annullamento, opposizione suppongo]. The Minister requested the Department Your actions as unfounded; legal costs [charged]

Pag 100 sui partecipa certi che dice?

 

[discipline]

Pag 100 sui partecipa certi che dice?

Aspe', sto leggendo le motivazioni a sostegno del rimborso 0... cmq in merito rimandano alla decisione della Enterprise Chamber della Amsterdam Court

21.2 Repayment first two series participation certificates
21.2.1 DNB, in response to the request of SNS Bank to consent to the second series of participation certificates in December 2012 decided that by SNS Bank issued participation certificates do not meet the requirement for Tier 1 instruments referred to in Article 91a of the Decree on Prudential Rules Wft (Bpr) or any other form of regulatory capital within the meaning of the Bpr. Partly in view of this, DNB authorizes the payment of the second series of participation certificates.

See also: Section 16.3.

21.2.2 In structuring the intervention and the choice of which instruments can and can not be expropriated would be the minister who followed the order in bankruptcy would have prevailed. The creditor position of the holders of the participation certificates differs in no respect from that of the other subordinated creditors. It is not relevant whether in July and December 2012 series participation certificates are redeemed. If the Minister participation certificates had not expropriated, he had an unjustified distinction between categories of stakeholders made​​. In the chapter on equality is discussed in more detail.

La coscienza a posto di DNB e Ministero sulla questione della fallace supervisione:
To assess whether the Minister is reasonably the contested decision can take because a situation posing as referred to in Articles 6:1 and 6:2 of the Wft. In that assessment is not relevant whether the Minister and / or DNB have failed in supervising SNS REAAL. That would mean that he failed to safeguard the financial stability had to intervene because he or DNB deficit would be shot in supervision. In application of Articles 6:1 and 6:2 Wft About provide information about the financial position of SNS REAAL, the Minister the following. To adopt the contested decision was SNS REAAL on their own feet and she was solely responsible for meeting its burden of information obligations. Any failure of SNS REAAL in compliance with those obligations may not be invoked against the minister. Incidentally, the minister notes that precisely at financial firms in difficulties restraint is required to provide information about those problems. If information in those circumstances generally would be announced, the problems of its nature and scope increase significantly. Capital would at that moment masse retraction which bankruptcy would have been inevitable. For that reason rightly exercised restraint in providing information. At the same time it can not be maintained that was not known that SNS REAAL Financial severely wrong again by the great losses suffered and would be incurred on the property portfolio of Property Finance. Was well known that a structural and comprehensive solution to these problems was necessary SNS REAAL afloat. Precisely the awareness of the problems of SNS REAAL, the issues strengthened because prices fell, negative ratings were revised and capital was withdrawn. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the investor on the basis of the information disclosed to decide on its investments. Thus they run the risk that the assessment they have made or otherwise would have been better if they had more information would have been available. This risk is inherent in the position of the investor. All investors are based on the same information can assess and bear the same risk to the implications of these estimates.

 

[sinequanon]

Sul punto la difesa di dj non mi pare convincente. Un conto è non fornire o limitare le informazioni al mercato per evitare un aggravamento della situazione mentre altro è dare informazioni di investimento errate. Un possessore di una LT2 cosa deve pensare nel vedere rimborsato un certificato di ranking inferiore che, ed è dimostrato dal successivo esproprio dei PC3, sono comunque capitale di alta qualità a disposizione di SNS. Come dimostrato dal ministro nella lettera al parlamento che invoca una soluzione di risarcimento per i PCIII invitando un suo dipendente, il co di una banca appena nazionalizzata, al risaricmento, appare evidente che tale rimborso è semplicemente diretto ad agevolare a posizione dei clienti (olandesi) di SNS bank. In un ottica prudenziale e di corretta informazione al mercato (non limitata ma corretta) la DBN avrebbe dovuto trattenere il capitale di alta qualità presso la banca medesima al fine di non depauperare la stessa di un importante buffer di capitale. Un conto è valutare un investimento con le informazioni disponibili corrette degli organi di vigilanza, altro è basare il proprio investimento su informazioni non corrette

 

[nik.sala]

...e questa l'avete letta o vi è scappata ???
Eurogruppo, prospettive preoccupanti Serve un limite al Fondo salva stati - Economia e Finanza con Bloomberg - Repubblica.it

 

[capt.harlock]

Il problema e' chi paga? Per questo sono negativo su qualsiasi causa fatta in Olanda che pur dobbiamo giustamente fare. E' in Europa dove possiamo avere qualche possibilita'.

imho un punto chiave per questa faccenda rimane il fatto che noi non siamo cittadini olandesi
le base/obbiettivo dell'esproprio con rimborso zero e' che il cittadino/stato olandese risparmia e guadagna una banca solida, il risparmiatore italiano non avra'benefici dall'esproprio con rimborso zero, in piu' lo stato italiano , visto che si creeranno minus consistenti deve mettere in conto cmq il 20% dell'intera minus che verrebbe a crearsi come mancato introito futuro su cg
io non ho idea di come un giudice olandese veda la cosa, di uno europeo non so, ma un giudice italiano......

Oramai è chiaro che per qualche motivo non vogliono stampare, e in fase recessiva senza stampare i debiti , senza crescita, diventano insolvibili, quindi li devi cancellare.... Sono delle specie di torturatori del risparmio...la UE è diventata terra di rischio, da prendi e fuggì per gli investitori....

è chiara la situazione...

e'chiara anche a me , solo che spesso me ne dimentico purtroppo...

 

[bluto]

Sul punto la difesa di dj non mi pare convincente. Un conto è non fornire o limitare le informazioni al mercato per evitare un aggravamento della situazione mentre altro è dare informazioni di investimento errate. Un possessore di una LT2 cosa deve pensare nel vedere rimborsato un certificato di ranking inferiore che, ed è dimostrato dal successivo esproprio dei PC3, sono comunque capitale di alta qualità a disposizione di SNS. Come dimostrato dal ministro nella lettera al parlamento che invoca una soluzione di risarcimento per i PCIII invitando un suo dipendente, il co di una banca appena nazionalizzata, al risaricmento, appare evidente che tale rimborso è semplicemente diretto ad agevolare a posizione dei clienti (olandesi) di SNS bank. In un ottica prudenziale e di corretta informazione al mercato (non limitata ma corretta) la DBN avrebbe dovuto trattenere il capitale di alta qualità presso la banca medesima al fine di non depauperare la stessa di un importante buffer di capitale. Un conto è valutare un investimento con le informazioni disponibili corrette degli organi di vigilanza, altro è basare il proprio investimento su informazioni non corrette

purtroppo queste sono basi per una difesa europea
considerando il modo di pensare dei nordici verso noi piigs siamo carne da macello di fronte ai tribunali olandesi
è anche vero che c'è veb e l'altra associazione olandese, insomma, noi avevamo briciole di tutta la roba che hanno RUBATO

 

[ferdo]

imho un punto chiave per questa faccenda rimane il fatto che noi non siamo cittadini olandesi
le base/obbiettivo dell'esproprio con rimborso zero e' che il cittadino/stato olandese risparmia e guadagna una banca solida, il risparmiatore italiano non avra'benefici dall'esproprio con rimborso zero, in piu' lo stato italiano , visto che si creeranno minus consistenti deve mettere in conto cmq il 20% dell'intera minus che verrebbe a crearsi come mancato introito futuro su cg
io non ho idea di come un giudice olandese veda la cosa, di uno europeo non so, ma un giudice italiano......

e'chiara anche a me , solo che spesso me ne dimentico purtroppo...

non sono d'accordo, creerebbe un differenza di trattamento tra cittadini olandesi e non, non penso ciò possa essere accettabile

 

[CristianF]

KPMG, certifying auditor of SNS, according to insiders would have a dual role played around proved disastrous real estate branch of the bank: Property Finance (PF).


The auditor advised SNS positive in 2006 with the takeover of ABN Amro PF. This brought KPMG in the years that followed in an extremely difficult position rightly, to be directly involved. "As it became increasingly clear that, contrary to the auditor at the acquisition had noted, all was not right at Property Finance, KPMG had meanwhile also the statements of SNS with the conscious portfolio approve. An impossible dilemma, "says an insider.
KPMG states in response that the auditor in the audit of financial statements do not let other things into account.

 

[capt.harlock]

non sono d'accordo, creerebbe un differenza di trattamento tra cittadini olandesi e non, non penso ciò possa essere accettabile

uno stato e'sovrano a casa sua, e'inaccettabile e fuori di senno il contrario