Einde inhoudsopgave
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company (IVOR nr. 72) 2010/6.7.2
6.7.2 Valuation date
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries, datum 03-05-2010
- Datum
03-05-2010
- Auteur
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS406317:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Bundel NV en BV, p. IX), - Art. 339 - 2 (MvT).
Bundel NV en BV, p. IX), - Art. 343 - 3 (MvT).
In a similar vein: Slagter (2005), p. 570; Asser/MaeijerNan Solinge & Nieuwe Weme 2-11* (2009), no. 717. A different view is adopted by: Asser/Maeijer 2-111 (2000), no. 498, in which reference is made to the date of the factual situation at the time of performance of the expert(s).
Parliamentary Papers II 2006/07, 31 058, no. 3 (MvT), p. 103 and 105.
Parliamentary Papers II 2006/07, 31 058, no. 3 (MvT), p. 105: '(...) geen wijziging wordt gebracht in het thans geldende uitgangspunt dat aandelen dienen te worden gewaardeerd tegen een tijdstip dat zo dicht mogelijk ligt bij de overdrachtsdatum.'
Parliamentary Papers II 2006/07, 31 058, no. 3 (MvT), p. 105.
HR 11 September 1996, NJ 1997/177, m.nt. Ma (Zondag Beheer).
HR 11 September 1996, NJ 1997/177 (Zondag Beheer), m.nt. Ma, r.o. 3.3 : 'Een redelijke toepassing van het in Art. 2:343 BW bepaalde verzet er zich immers niet tegen dat de rechter bij de vaststelling van de waarde van aandelen die na het wijzen van het vonnis dienen te worden overgedragen, rekening houdt met omstandigheden die van invloed zijn op die waarde, welke zich kunnen voordoen tussen het tijdstip dat deskundigen als peildatum voor de beoordeling van die waarde hebben gehanteerd en het tijdstip waarop die overdracht naar valt aan te nemen in feite zal plaatsvinden.'
OK 5 August 2004, JOR 2004, 327 (Aannemersbedrijf Gebroeders Sonder), r.o. 4.7.
OK 5 August 2004, JOR 2004, 327 (Aannemersbedrijf Gebroeders Sonder), r.o. 4.8 and 4.9. The day of transfer is also the day as of which statutory interest must be paid, see OK 12 May 2009, ARO 2009, 91 (Aannemersbedrijf Gebroeders Sonder).
Den Boer (2002), p. 344-346; Timmerman (2003), p. 92; Leijten (2003), p. 71; De Vries (2003), p. 313; Bulten (2005), p. 49; De Vries (2006), p. 453; Asser/MaeijerNan Solinge & Nieuwe Weme 2-11* (2009), no. 717. Dissenting: Bulten (2007), in which it is submitted that the rules are already flexible enough to deal with valuation issues.
With respect to adjusting the price of the shares, see § 6.7.4. About related claims, see § 6.6.6.
Parliamentary Papers II 2006/07, 31 058, no. 3 (MvT), p. 104: 'Er wordt onvoldoende grond gezien om — zoals in de consultatie door sommigen is voorgesteld — af te wijken van het thans geldende uitgangspunt dat de waardering zoveel mogelijk betrekking moet hebben op de waarde ten tijde van de overdracht. Eventuele onbillijkheden als gevolg van dat uitgangspunt kunnen afdoende worden vermeden door het instellen van een met de vordering tot overdracht samenhangende vordering tot schadevergoeding (artikel 336 lid 5) of (in het geval van uittreding) door te verzoeken om een billijke verhoging op de voet van artikel 343 lid 4.'
Statute does not contain any reference to a certain date on which the shares have to be valued. The legislative history is not very clear about this matter either. At a certain stage, the Minister remarked that the shares have to be valued with reference to the day on which the judgment rewarding the exit claim becomes irrevocable.1 Somewhat confusing around the same time the Minister held that experts have to value the shares according to the factual situation at the time of their performance.2
In my opinion, the leading thought should be that the shares are valued with reference to a day that approaches the day on which the shares are actually transferred and consideration is provided.3 On this date the shares will be for the account and risk of the person(s) ordered to accept the shares. This stance is affirmed by the Minister during the preparation of the legislative proposal of the current exit proceedings.4
"(...) there will be no change in the present starting point that shares should be valued at a certain point in time as close as possible to the date of transfer."5
The view that the valuation date should refer to the day that the judgment becomes irrevocable dates from a time that a judgment onder the exit proceedings could not be declared provisionally enforceable. As appears from recent legislative history, if the judgment is declared provisionally enforceable, the reference day must lie before the day the judgment becomes irrevocable. This earlier date must be the day the judgment becomes provisionally enforceable.6 Again, a date is taken that is near to the factual transfer date.
Remarkably, the view that a valuation date must be put earlier if the judgment is declared provisionally enforceable has already been developed under former BV law in the case of Zondag Beheer B. V7
In the case of Zondag Beheer B.V. a claim under the exit proceedings was rewarded by the District Court. Subsequently, the District Court appointed experts. These experts delivered a valuation report based on the situation of the 1993 year 's end. On the basis of the experts' report, the court determined the price of the shares by way of judgment in September 1994. Surprisingly, the court declared its judgment provisionally enforceable which at that time was in contrast with the statutory provisions of the exit proceedings. On the basis of the judgment, the shares were transferred in and consideration was paid. Afterwards, parties quarrelled about the price because it appeared that the shares' value had substantially increased between the valuation date (31 December 1993) and the date of transfer (20 September 1994). For this reason, the judgment was appealed.
The OK was of the opinion that it would be reasonable to take the increase of value into regard. Moreover, the OK ordered that, in addition, the amount of the increase must be adjusted with statutory interest as of the day of the first claim for increase of the value (which was 22 September 1994). This statutory interest is based on Art. 6:119 DCC, applicable when a debtor is in delay (verzuim) with payments that are payable (opeisbaar) pursuant to Art. 6:81 DCC.
In September 1996, The HR held that the OK was right to judge that a decent price determination should entail taking into regard an increase of the value of shares between the reference date of the valuation report and the date of the actual transfer of and payment for the shares. The HR put that the court may take all circumstances of the case into consideration when determining the price of the shares.
"A reasonable application of the stipulation of Art. 2:343 DCC offers no resistance for a the court, when determining the value of shares that after pronouncing judgment are to be transferred, to take into account circumstances affecting that value which may occur between the point in time that experts have applied as reference date for their valuation and the point in time at which that transfer is assumed to actually take place."8
The HR however denied that the increase itself must be increased with statutory interest, as the judgment with respect rewarding the increase was not yet irrevocable at 22 September 1994, but was irrevocable from the day after service of the judgment of the HR upon the defendant.
The view that the court must also take into regard fluctuations of the price occurred after the valuation date when determining the price of shares is repeated by the OK in 2004.9 In this case, the shares were already transferred during the exit proceedings, although there was not yet an obligation to do so. The OK therefore ordered that the shares had to be valued with reference to the day of transfer.10 Again, this case is in line with the view that shares are valued with reference to the day of the actual transfer.
In legal literature, it has been suggested that a more flexible date could lead to a more practical way of valuation, especially when a decrease in value due to prejudicial conduct must be corrected.11 In this situation, a valuation date could be used just before the prejudicial conduct has occurred. Using a flexible valuation date could be more practical than adjusting the price of the shares or start proceedings for claims related to the exit claim.12 As I described in § 3.3.11.5, English law shows that a flexible valuation date is a very helpful and practical tool for determining a für price of the shares. In the aforementioned paragraph several examples are elaborated in which using a flexible date is recommended.
Unfortunately, this suggestion has not been adopted by the legislator. The Minister was of the opinion that the possibility to join exit proceedings with proceedings for related claims and the discretion of the court to fürly increase the price of the shares would hand the court enough flexibility.
"There is an insufficient basis to — as suggested by some in the consultation — deviate from the presently applicable basic principle that the valuation needs to relate to the value at the time of the transfer as much as possible. Potential unreasonableness as a consequence of that basic principle can be sufficiently avoided by initiating a claim for compensation in connection with the expulsion proceedings (Article 336 paragraph 5) or (in the case of an exit) by requesting a für increase on the basis of Article 343 paragraph 4."13
I do not favour the view of the Minister, because I do not see what is wrong with creating more flexibility if this would lead to a more practical approach.