bluto
Forumer attivo
The Dutch activist representing a number of Maltese investors in SNS-Reaal, Frans Faas, did not have exactly comforting news to those who had sought his help in trying to recoup their investments.
Mr Faas told investors grouped in a foundation:
1. Cassation/Appeal from the Dutch State
As announced before, the Dutch State has filed an appeal against the preliminary verdict of the Enterprise Chamber at the High Council.
It is quite difficult (and unnecessary) to summarise this 84-pages long appeal. It is the task of the High Council to judge on a proper interpretation of the Intervention Act. The outcome is unclear, especially because the Intervention Act has never been challenged before.
However I would like to share with you three headlines from the appeal which might be relevant:
A. The Dutch State argues that the Enterprise Chamber should not take into account the prices paid on the Stock Exchange just before the expropriation.
In my opinion this argument will not be honoured because in the explanatory/accompanying notes to the Intervention Act, the stock price is explicitly mentioned as – one of the – relevant measures on which a compensation should be based. Furthermore, originally it was supposed to be the only measure.
B. The Dutch State argues that the Enterprise Chamber could not argue that the compensation would definitely be higher than zero.
This is a statement that we initially can understand because the Enterprise Chamber argues that they need support from experts to determine the value but on the other hand has concluded for itself that the outcome should be higher than zero and the experts – to be nominated – should accept that. In my perception the Enterprise Chamber has already concluded that – in any case – the prices paid on the Stock Exchange must play a vital role and because these prices – even close to the expropriation – were significantly higher than zero, the outcome statistically must be higher than zero and furthermore has taken into account that according to the European Council of Human Rights an expropriation without any compensation is only justified in exceptional cases.
Even if the High Council would honour this argument from the Dutch State it is no problem because I believe we have overwhelming evidence as to the positive value of the company and/or their bonds.
C. The Dutch State argues that the Enterprise Chamber should not exclude future effects of decisions taken prior to the nationalisation in determining the value of the securities at the moment the bonds were expropriated.
This is a tricky point because it refers to the intended decision of the Dutch Central Bank to withdraw the banking permit of SNS (the so-called SREP-decision). It must be clear that if the Dutch Central Bank would have taken this decision (and any appeals against it were turned down), this inevitably would have had a deteriorating effect on the value (and price) of the bonds.
Whatever the High Council is going to decide on this point is unclear, but the Foundation is convinced of the fact that the two countermeasures it has taken will prove to be fruitful in order to mitigate any negative effects (see below).
We are expecting a verdict from the High Council within three to six months.
2. Procedure against the Dutch Central Bank
We have informed you in the past that the Dutch Central Bank has declared the Foundation ‘inadmissible’ in our appeal against them and we have initiated a procedure at the Administrative Court of Rotterdam in order to challenge this decision. Around year-end we expect the hearing where we could explain our complaints and around April 2014 we expect a verdict. In the light of a specific part of the cassation-procedure this procedure, in which all participants of the foundation take part without any extra charge, this procedure is more important than originally thought and we will devote more effort in order to get a prosperous verdict.
Even if the judges from the Administrative Court in Rotterdam will not honour our complaints there is a second appeal possible at the Council of State. Because of the increased importance of the role of the Dutch Central Bank we will definitely exhaust all legal possibilities in order to get a positive verdict.
3. Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights (only relevant for those who have applied)
After we had initially filed our appeal at the ECHR in a timely manner (deadline 23 August) the ECHR came up with a number of bureaucratic questions/requests, which caused an extra administrative burden. Thanks to the dedication of our participants (for which I am grateful) we have managed to take this additional hurdle again in time and have submitted all relevant paperwork this week (two weeks ago).
In the light of a specific part of the cassation-procedure described in this e-mail this legal procedure is an excellent part of our strategy whereby we keep the Dutch judges under pressure and we are more than happy that we have initiated it (and a huge part of the participants has followed us). In the unlikely case however that the final verdict of the Enterprise Chamber will bring a negative outcome (compensation 0) we still have this second route to follow in order to get a proper compensation for the expropriation.
4. Next update
Based on our current estimate of future developments we expect the next update not earlier than around Christmas. Hopefully you will understand that we must have something substantial to communicate before we send you a new update. Although we understand your ‘ímpatience’ it is therefore not necessary to send us an e-mail requesting whether there is any news because you might have experienced that we are quite alert. Thank you for your understanding!
Times lengthening on SNS-Reaal case - The Malta Independent
Mr Faas told investors grouped in a foundation:
1. Cassation/Appeal from the Dutch State
As announced before, the Dutch State has filed an appeal against the preliminary verdict of the Enterprise Chamber at the High Council.
It is quite difficult (and unnecessary) to summarise this 84-pages long appeal. It is the task of the High Council to judge on a proper interpretation of the Intervention Act. The outcome is unclear, especially because the Intervention Act has never been challenged before.
However I would like to share with you three headlines from the appeal which might be relevant:
A. The Dutch State argues that the Enterprise Chamber should not take into account the prices paid on the Stock Exchange just before the expropriation.
In my opinion this argument will not be honoured because in the explanatory/accompanying notes to the Intervention Act, the stock price is explicitly mentioned as – one of the – relevant measures on which a compensation should be based. Furthermore, originally it was supposed to be the only measure.
B. The Dutch State argues that the Enterprise Chamber could not argue that the compensation would definitely be higher than zero.
This is a statement that we initially can understand because the Enterprise Chamber argues that they need support from experts to determine the value but on the other hand has concluded for itself that the outcome should be higher than zero and the experts – to be nominated – should accept that. In my perception the Enterprise Chamber has already concluded that – in any case – the prices paid on the Stock Exchange must play a vital role and because these prices – even close to the expropriation – were significantly higher than zero, the outcome statistically must be higher than zero and furthermore has taken into account that according to the European Council of Human Rights an expropriation without any compensation is only justified in exceptional cases.
Even if the High Council would honour this argument from the Dutch State it is no problem because I believe we have overwhelming evidence as to the positive value of the company and/or their bonds.
C. The Dutch State argues that the Enterprise Chamber should not exclude future effects of decisions taken prior to the nationalisation in determining the value of the securities at the moment the bonds were expropriated.
This is a tricky point because it refers to the intended decision of the Dutch Central Bank to withdraw the banking permit of SNS (the so-called SREP-decision). It must be clear that if the Dutch Central Bank would have taken this decision (and any appeals against it were turned down), this inevitably would have had a deteriorating effect on the value (and price) of the bonds.
Whatever the High Council is going to decide on this point is unclear, but the Foundation is convinced of the fact that the two countermeasures it has taken will prove to be fruitful in order to mitigate any negative effects (see below).
We are expecting a verdict from the High Council within three to six months.
2. Procedure against the Dutch Central Bank
We have informed you in the past that the Dutch Central Bank has declared the Foundation ‘inadmissible’ in our appeal against them and we have initiated a procedure at the Administrative Court of Rotterdam in order to challenge this decision. Around year-end we expect the hearing where we could explain our complaints and around April 2014 we expect a verdict. In the light of a specific part of the cassation-procedure this procedure, in which all participants of the foundation take part without any extra charge, this procedure is more important than originally thought and we will devote more effort in order to get a prosperous verdict.
Even if the judges from the Administrative Court in Rotterdam will not honour our complaints there is a second appeal possible at the Council of State. Because of the increased importance of the role of the Dutch Central Bank we will definitely exhaust all legal possibilities in order to get a positive verdict.
3. Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights (only relevant for those who have applied)
After we had initially filed our appeal at the ECHR in a timely manner (deadline 23 August) the ECHR came up with a number of bureaucratic questions/requests, which caused an extra administrative burden. Thanks to the dedication of our participants (for which I am grateful) we have managed to take this additional hurdle again in time and have submitted all relevant paperwork this week (two weeks ago).
In the light of a specific part of the cassation-procedure described in this e-mail this legal procedure is an excellent part of our strategy whereby we keep the Dutch judges under pressure and we are more than happy that we have initiated it (and a huge part of the participants has followed us). In the unlikely case however that the final verdict of the Enterprise Chamber will bring a negative outcome (compensation 0) we still have this second route to follow in order to get a proper compensation for the expropriation.
4. Next update
Based on our current estimate of future developments we expect the next update not earlier than around Christmas. Hopefully you will understand that we must have something substantial to communicate before we send you a new update. Although we understand your ‘ímpatience’ it is therefore not necessary to send us an e-mail requesting whether there is any news because you might have experienced that we are quite alert. Thank you for your understanding!
Times lengthening on SNS-Reaal case - The Malta Independent
Io pagherei 10 euro anche Iw se mi trasferisce in 3gg
