Menno Stoffer and Pieter Hooghoudt1
The Dutch loan finance market for corporate borrowers is still mainly handled out of banks. It can roughly be divided into three market segments. The small market segment represents principal loan amounts of up to approximately €30 million, which are often lent by a bank in a relationship context and on a bilateral basis. These loans are often documented on the basis of the bank’s own templates. When trading may be an option at a later stage, Loan Market Association (LMA) standards may also be used. Mid-market deals range from around €30 million up to approximately €250 million, and are often provided by a club of (mainly Dutch) banks on the basis of the LMA standards for investment grade or leveraged acquisition loans. For loans in excess of €250 million, larger syndicates often need to be formed. Given the limited number of sizeable Dutch banks active in the corporate lending market, non-Dutch banks are often required to be involved. Similarly, borrowers with foreign business or subsidiaries often try to engage banks from those jurisdictions as well.
Non-bank financing is also increasingly used but still to a lesser extent, though the increasingly strict capital and risk management requirements applicable to banks lead to alternative credit providers increasing their share in the market (as further discussed in Section VII). Such non-bank financing particularly includes equity financing, debt capital markets financing, private placements, securitisations and financing by mezzanine debt funds.
II LEGAL AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS
Since 1 July 2017, there have been no Dutch corporate law developments that have been particularly relevant for loan finance practice in the Netherlands. However, there have been regulatory changes that affect the position of lenders or borrowers in one way or another. Dutch regulatory developments from 1 July 2017 (other than through EU regulations) include the following:
- The Minister of Finance is considering a review of the Dutch Financial Markets Supervision Act in order to make financial regulation more accessible and future-proof. With a view thereto, the Minister published an exploratory study of options, offering five angles of approach that vary from leaving the Dutch Financial Markets Supervision Act as it is to replacement of that act with a number of separate, sectoral acts. The related consultation ran until 1 March 2017. The Minister indicated to expect to present an outline policy document to Parliament in March 2018 but has not yet done so.
- The Dutch Decree implementing the EU Market Abuse Regulation entered into force on 12 July 2017. This decree finalises the implementation of the Market Abuse Regulation in the Netherlands and amends a number of decrees, including the Market Abuse Decree and the Decree on Administrative Fines in the Financial Sector.
- Per decree that entered into force on 1 January 2018, the Dutch Financial Markets Supervisor (AFM) was designated the competent authority for the EU Regulation on financial benchmarks (BMR) (which regulation may impact the use and availability of interest rate benchmarks used in loan agreements) and was granted the power to impose fines and penalties for infringement thereof. Further, the Dutch Minister of Finance has submitted a bill to Parliament to amend the Dutch Financial Markets Supervision Act and the Economic Offences Act as part of the execution of the BMR. The bill extends the enforcement powers of the AFM to include the power to temporarily ban individuals from performing certain roles within a benchmark administrator. Also, the bill introduces sanctions for breaching the obligation for market parties to exclusively use benchmarks that have been created under the rules of the BMR or the requirement of a licence to operate as a benchmark administrator.
- The Financial Markets Amendments Decree 2017 entered into force on 1 July 2017. The Ministry of Finance has held a consultation on the Financial Markets Amendments Decree 2018 and the Financial Markets Amendment Bill 2019. These are expected to enter into force on a date to be determined by later decree and by mid-2019, respectively.
In a much discussed ruling in October 2017, the Enterprise Division of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of ensuring substantial influence and timely involvement of the company’s works council in a sales process relating to the company. The court held that, pursuant to a paragraph of the Dutch Works Councils Act, the company should have sought the works council’s advice on the appointment of external financial and legal advisers in relation to the sales process. The ruling may (but does not necessarily) apply equally to the appointment of advisers in other processes requiring works council advice that are relevant to loan finance practice. These include attracting or providing an important credit and providing security or guarantees for the debts of another entrepreneur. Though its consequences are not yet entirely clear, the ruling may lead to earlier involvement of works councils in financing processes and in the appointment of external advisers for that purpose.
III TAX CONSIDERATIONS
i Withholding taxes
A lender to a borrower, resident in the Netherlands, is not subject to any withholding tax, except if the loan qualifies as a participating loan, in which case payments to the lender are treated similar to dividend payments and are subject to a 15 per cent dividend withholding tax. A loan is qualified as a participating loan if it has no maturity or a maturity over 50 years, is subordinated to all senior debt and is profit participating.
The Dutch government has announced that the present dividend withholding tax will be abolished as of 1 January 2020. At the same time, a new dividend withholding tax will be introduced, targeting abusive, artificial situations that are expected to apply also to participating loans in such situations. In addition, the Dutch government has announced the introduction per 1 January 2021 of a withholding tax that should apply to payments under all intra-group loans that are considered to be part of an abusive or artificial structure. No further details are known yet.
ii Stamp taxes and duties
No stamp taxes or duties are due in connection with the issuance of debt by a Dutch borrower.
iii Corporate taxation for the borrower
A borrower who is subject to Dutch corporate income tax generally can deduct on an accrual’s basis any compensation that is due to the lender, insofar as the compensation meets the arm’s length criterion. However, a number of detailed anti-abuse provisions apply, that may restrict, or eliminate entirely, the deduction of interest. Certain rules only apply to related party debt, others also apply to third party loans.
In the course of 2018, new rules will be introduced that are expected to change the relevant provisions fundamentally and that also may affect the tax treatment of existing debt instruments. At this time, no further details are known.
iv Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act
The Netherlands has entered into an agreement with the United States regarding the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) rules. Loan documentation related to the issuance by Dutch borrowers generally includes standard provisions regarding the FATCA rules that are in line with documentation included in similar documentation for issuers in other jurisdictions that have entered into such an agreement.
IV CREDIT SUPPORT AND SUBORDINATION
Asset classes over which Dutch law security can be granted
Under Dutch law, security can be taken over real property, receivables (including trade receivables, intercompany loans, cash deposited in bank accounts and insurance receivables), inventory, intellectual property and certain other asset classes, such as shares in Dutch companies. Whether security can be taken over other asset classes will depend on the type of assets involved. A Dutch law security right can only be vested in assets that are transferable or assignable.
Types of Dutch law security
Dutch law provides for two types of security rights:
- security created on registered assets, such as real property, ‘registered’ vessels and aircraft and on limited rights vested therein, this type of security right being referred to as mortgage; and
- security created on all other assets, whether tangible (such as movable assets) or intangible (such as receivables and registered shares), which type of security right is referred to as pledge.
The creation of Dutch law security
Security over the assets classes referred to above will be created as follows.
Dutch real property and other registered assets are mortgaged pursuant to a Dutch notarial deed and registration of the deed with the appropriate Dutch public register.
Trade receivables are pledged pursuant to a private deed and registration of the deed with the Dutch tax authorities (or pursuant to a notarial deed), without notification to the debtors of the receivables (an ‘undisclosed pledge’). Such an undisclosed pledge over receivables constitutes a valid right of pledge (but can be invoked against the debtor of the receivable only after it has been notified to it). The pledge will attach only to receivables that exist at the date of the deed or that will be directly obtained from an agreement or other legal relationship existing at that date. To nonetheless maximise the security coverage, the practical solution is that in the deed of pledge the pledgor will agree to periodically (usually between one and three months, depending on the speed at which the trade receivables portfolio is renewed) enter into an additional deed of pledge. Pursuant to that additional deed, the pledgor will pledge the receivables existing at the date of the additional deed, or that will be directly obtained from a legal relationship existing at that date. Each additional deed of pledge must also be registered with the Dutch tax authorities. The original deed of pledge will set out the procedures to be followed (and grant any required powers of attorney) in connection with the signing and registration of each additional deed of pledge.
Dutch banks have implemented systems to further maximise their security coverage in relation to such trade or other receivables. Most Dutch banks pledge to themselves on a daily basis the receivables required to be pledged to them by way of a standardised deed covering all pledgors that have granted them a power of attorney to do so (as most will have done). The general validity of this system has been confirmed by case law from the Dutch Supreme Court.
Receivables can also be pledged pursuant to a private deed (or notarial deed) and notification of that deed to the debtors of the receivables (a ‘disclosed pledge’). In practice, this type of creation of a pledge is reserved for specific types of receivables, including intercompany loans and insurance receivables. For legal reasons, cash deposited in bank accounts can be pledged only by way of a disclosed pledge. Generally, the pledgor shall not accept a disclosed pledge in respect of other receivables such as trade receivables, both to avoid the hassle of notifying large numbers of trade debtors of the pledge and to avoid trade debtors being made aware of the pledge through notification.
Dutch inventory is pledged pursuant to a private deed and registration of the deed with the Dutch tax authorities (or pursuant to a notarial deed). Such undisclosed pledge over inventory constitutes a valid right of pledge (but it may not be possible to invoke the pledge against a third party acting in good faith).
Although specific rules exist for specific types of intellectual property rights, as a general rule intellectual property rights are pledged pursuant to a private deed (but can also be pledged pursuant to a notarial deed). To ensure that the pledge can be invoked against third parties, for some intellectual property rights the pledge must be registered in the appropriate public registers. Because of the international nature of intellectual property rights, creating security over intellectual property rights is rarely simple and cost-effective. Therefore, pledges on intellectual property rights tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
Shares in a Dutch private company with limited liability can be pledged pursuant to a Dutch notarial deed, unless the articles of association of the company provide otherwise. If the company concerned is not a party to the deed (which it usually will be) the pledgee can only invoke the pledge against the company if the pledge has been notified to it. The pledgee shall only have the right to vote, if so provided, whether or not subject to a condition precedent (such as the occurrence of an event of default), at the time of the creation of the right of pledge or thereafter agreed in writing and provided the transfer of the right to vote is approved by the general meeting. The articles may, however, derogate from these provisions. If the company has a works council, the works council may need to be given an opportunity to advise on the creation of the share pledge.
Registered shares in a Dutch public company that is not listed are pledged in largely the same way as described above, although formalities may differ depending on the company concerned. Pledges on other types of shares (such as bearer shares and shares included in a clearing system) are relatively rare in the context of loan financing, and are not discussed in this chapter.
Is it possible to give asset security by means of a general security agreement?
Separate pledges (or mortgages) must be created for the various types of assets such as Dutch real property, receivables, Dutch inventory, intellectual property and shares in Dutch companies. However, the various pledges can be combined in one deed of pledge. As a deed of mortgage on real property must be in notarial form and be registered in the Dutch public registers, such a deed will generally be a separate document from a deed of pledge over other asset types.
Formalities that need to be performed
Mortgages on Dutch real property must be registered in the appropriate public register, where the mortgage deeds are available for public inspection. Pledges on registered shares in a Dutch company must be notified to the company concerned, unless the company is a party to the deed of pledge (which would be the normal situation). The company must register the share pledge in its shareholders register, but the latter generally has no bearing on the validity or enforceability of the share pledge. The shareholders register is not open to public inspection. Undisclosed pledges on receivables and on Dutch inventory (including any supplemental deeds) must be registered with the Dutch tax authorities (unless they are in the form of a Dutch notarial deed). The purpose of the registration is to ensure that the pledge has an officially recorded date and not to facilitate levying taxes. Disclosed pledges on cash in a bank account, intercompany loans or insurance receivables need to be notified to the debtor or debtors concerned. No registration requirements apply. Pledges on intellectual property rights generally do not need to be registered in order to be valid. However, for some intellectual property rights registered in a public register (including patents, trade and service marks and models), the pledgor can only invoke the pledge against third parties if the pledge is registered in the appropriate register.
No registration involves significant amounts of time or expense. The costs of notarial work required in connection with mortgages on Dutch real property and pledges on shares will usually be charged as part of the legal fees. They are not dependent on the value of the underlying assets. Registration of mortgages with the appropriate public registers and of pledges with the Dutch tax authorities requires payment of nominal registration fees. For the purpose of the registration (if any) of pledges on intellectual property rights, it will often be necessary to involve a registration agency that will charge limited fees. In addition, nominal registration fees must be paid.
Enforcement of Dutch law security
A Dutch mortgage or pledge can only be enforced in case of a payment default under the secured obligations. However, in the case of a disclosed pledge on receivables, subject to any limitations agreed between the pledgor and the pledgee, the pledgee may at any time exercise the right to collect the receivable, and may apply the proceeds towards satisfaction of the secured obligations as soon as they are due and payable. The same applies in the case of an undisclosed pledge of receivables, except that in that case the debtor under the receivable must first be notified of the pledge. The moment as of which the pledgee becomes entitled to disclose the pledge is generally agreed in the deed of pledge.
In practice, undisclosed pledges on receivables are enforced by the pledgee first giving notice of the pledge to the debtors of the receivables and then collecting the receivables, while disclosed pledges on receivables are enforced by the pledgee giving notice of enforcement of the pledge to the debtors of the receivables and then collecting the receivables.
In case of an undisclosed pledge over inventory, again subject to any limitations agreed between the pledgor and the pledgee, the pledgee may take control of the pledged property if the pledgor or debtor does not, or if the pledgee has good reasons to fear that the pledgor or debtor will not meet its obligations. The deed of pledge may provide that the pledgee will have this right at an earlier or later stage.
Pledges on inventory are (and pledges on receivables may also be) enforced by way of a public sale. The sale requires compliance with certain procedural requirements. As an alternative, the pledgee (as well as the pledgor, unless otherwise agreed in the deed of pledge) may request the competent court to approve a private sale or to determine that the assets shall accrue to the pledgee. After a payment default under the secured obligations has occurred, the pledgor and the pledgee may also agree on an alternative manner to enforce the pledge (such as the assets accruing to the pledgee without court approval).
Mortgages on Dutch real property are enforced by way of a public sale. The sale requires compliance with certain procedural requirements that may be time-consuming. The mortgagee and the mortgagor may request that the competent court approve a private sale of the property.
Pledges on registered shares in a Dutch company are enforced in the manner set out for pledges on inventory. However, any transfer restrictions in the relevant company’s articles of association must be complied with, provided that for private companies with limited liability the pledgee may exercise all rights vested in the shareholder with regard to such transfer and perform the latter’s obligations in respect thereof.
A pledge on intellectual property rights is in principle enforced through sale of such rights in the same way as described above for inventory (and receivables). For certain intellectual property rights, however, specific rules apply, requiring, for example, the involvement of a civil law notary and imposing specific procedural rules.
Security created in favour of multiple creditors
The prevailing view is that Dutch law does not facilitate the granting of security on Dutch assets to more than one secured party by way of trust structures. For that reason, in almost every syndicated financing including security interests governed by Dutch law, a ‘parallel debt’ structure is used. Under that structure, each obligor undertakes to pay to the security agent in its own name (and not as the finance parties’ representative) amounts equal to the amounts owed by that obligor to all lenders under the finance documents (that undertaking being the parallel debt). Dutch security interests are then created in the name of the security agent only (and thus not also in the name of the other finance parties) to secure the payment of the parallel debt. Each finance party subsequently has a contractual claim against the security agent for payment of an amount that is determined under an intercreditor arrangement from the proceeds of the enforcement of the security interests.
ii Guarantees and other forms of credit support
There are many other forms of credit support available under Dutch law. Guarantees are commonly included in Dutch law-governed LMA-based (syndicated) credit facilities. The wording, with a few exceptions, generally follows the LMA English law standards. Technical changes often agreed are mainly made to ensure that the guarantee is not to be considered as a suretyship or joint and several liability. To avoid a situation – which will usually only occur if the group is in distress – where a guarantor that has not benefited from the facility but has made a payment to the finance parties under its guarantee, and cannot take recourse against the borrower whose debts it has serviced, it is (from a guarantor’s perspective) advisable to create a specific arrangement on recourse between obligors. There are various options available, but whichever alternative is chosen, recourse claims between obligors generally have limited practical relevance as long as the finance parties are not fully paid, as an LMA-based guarantee typically requires the obligors to refrain from exercising any recourse rights for as long as any amount under the facility agreement remains outstanding.
To a lesser extent, joint and several liability is assumed by obligors under Dutch law syndicated financings. That is often the case in the context of ancillary agreements relating to, for instance, cash management. In such event, the creditor is entitled to claim payment in full from each obligor. In the event that an obligor pays a greater share than required, that obligor is, for that greater share, entitled to take recourse against the other obligors who paid less than they are required to in their relation to the paying obligor. Such obligor shall be subrogated for such excess against the co-obligors and third parties, in each case up to the share of the co-obligor or third party in accordance with the relationship with that obligor.
Also, contractually a form of credit support can be created. That can, for instance, be done by agreeing to (extensive) negative undertakings limiting various activities that the borrower may not engage in without the lender’s consent (as is common in the vast majority of financings in the Dutch market (including LMA-based financings)). In essence, such negative undertakings contractually enhance the risk profile of the borrower towards the finance parties. Examples of those undertakings are negative pledge undertakings that are routinely included in any credit facility and that also restrict the entering into of quasi-security (such as sale and leaseback transactions) and, although more common in leveraged transactions, covenants preventing dividend and other shareholder payments, which lenders will require to ensure that there is no ‘cash leakage’ from the borrower’s group.
iii Priorities and subordination
In principle, creditors of Dutch debtors have, among themselves, an equal right to be paid from the net proceeds of all assets of their debtor in proportion to their claims. Their claims thus rank pari passu. Dutch law, however, accepts the possibility of a first ranking security right, second ranking security right, etc., with respect to both mortgage and pledge, and provides for other grounds for preference (such as rights of retention and privileges of the Dutch tax authority and a trustee in bankruptcy). Similarly, a contractual arrangement between a creditor and a debtor may stipulate that a claim of a creditor shall take, in respect of all or certain other creditors, a ranking lower than that conferred by law.
Under Dutch law, as a general rule security that was created first in time has the highest priority. With respect to ‘invisible’ security rights (such as an undisclosed pledge on receivables) it is, therefore, important that conclusive evidence can be provided as to the date when a security right was created. Such evidence is provided through the execution of a pledge in the form of a notarial deed or by registration of a private deed with the Dutch tax authorities.
In the Netherlands, no public register exists in which pledges can be filed. As a result, there is no public basis on which a creditor can verify whether any assets of a debtor are encumbered with a pledge. Therefore, a creditor cannot determine in advance whether its debtor’s assets have been pledged previously. However, mortgages are registered in a public register and thus their ranking can be determined by checking the appropriate register. Pledges on shares in a company are required to be recorded in that company’s shareholder register. It is, however, to be noted that such shareholder registers are often incomplete and do not provide conclusive evidence.
Subordination can arise directly from the law or may be agreed upon contractually between parties. An example of a subordination arising from the law is a subordination of claims of the shareholders of a company to the claims of other creditors of the company. More relevant for Dutch financing practice are forms of subordination contractually agreed as part of intercreditor arrangements. In determining the scope of a contractual subordination, the wording of the subordination clause or clauses is important, specifically to determine whether it will have an effect inside bankruptcy, outside bankruptcy or both.
Contractual subordination can be distinguished in statutory subordination and non-statutory subordination. Non-statutory subordination has effect only outside bankruptcy and comes in many varieties. In case of such non-statutory subordination, the subordination may, for example:
- relate to the ability to claim on certain obligations or to the right to claim itself (and thus does not need to be limited to rank only);
- ensure that a claim of the subordinated creditor only becomes due if the claims of certain senior creditors have been paid; or
- restrict the recourse rights of the subordinated creditor to certain assets of the debtor.
In the event of statutory subordination, the debtor and creditor can, however, only contractually agree that the claim of the creditor against the debtor will be subordinated in rank to all or certain other creditors of the debtor. This specific type of subordination is laid down in the Dutch Civil Code and, necessarily, applies only in case of insolvency (but may be combined with non-statutory subordination that applies outside insolvency). It also applies accordingly in cases of other types of concursus, particularly in the event of enforcement of security rights or attachments.
In order to invoke a statutory or non-statutory subordination against a debtor (in particular to prevent that such debtor can discharge its payment obligation towards the junior creditor), a subordination agreement needs to have been entered into between the junior creditor and the debtor. From a senior creditor point of view, it is preferable that it is a party to such agreement as well. Depending on the terms agreed in a subordination agreement (such as a full subordination towards all creditors), senior creditors that were not a party to such subordination agreement may nevertheless rely on such subordination.
A variation on the subordination described above is a type of (non-actual) subordination to which a debtor is not a party. As part thereof, it may be agreed, for instance, to not enforce certain rights or to agree on a waterfall. Such agreement cannot be invoked against the debtor and only affects the creditors that are a party thereto.
V LEGAL RESERVATIONS AND OPINIONS PRACTICE
Banks entering into a financing documented in LMA form (whether bilateral or syndicated) routinely require that legal opinions are provided to them. If multiple jurisdictions are involved (for instance if the financing has foreign obligors), opinions from each relevant jurisdiction will be required. Customarily, opinions will be provided by counsel to the banks, although in some case banks may accept an opinion from counsel to the borrower, or agree to a split between a capacity opinion (to be provided by counsel to the borrower) and an enforceability opinion (to be provided by counsel to the banks).
Dutch opinion practice closely follows international and European practice. Dutch opinion givers tend to limit their opinions strictly to legal matters, and therefore tend to assume all facts that cannot be independently ascertained. For the same reason, Dutch opinion givers tend not to give ‘no breach of agreements’ and ‘no violation of judgments’ opinions, which are uncommon in the Dutch market.
VI LOAN TRADING
Most of the syndicated loans that are governed by Dutch law are documented using standard forms published by the LMA. LMA forms will typically also be utilised to document a transfer or assignment of commitments (at par or distressed) outstanding under any such Dutch law-governed syndicated credit facilities. Such credit facilities also provide to which financial entities commitments may be transferred and to what extent consent from the borrower (and within which time frame) may be required. For Dutch law-governed investment grade credit facilities, it is often agreed that for each assignment or transfer the borrower’s consent is required unless the assignment or transfer is to another lender or its affiliate or an event of default is continuing. In more leveraged situations, the lenders are generally allowed to more freely assign or transfer any loan commitments and with less consent requirement being applicable. The cooperation of a Dutch borrower with a transfer or assignment may also be needed if know-your-client rules require investigation of the obligors, and because the borrower will need to countersign the transfer or assignment agreement.
The Dutch Financial Markets Supervision Act includes certain restrictions that are relevant to the transfer or assignment of loans outstanding to Dutch borrowers. If the monetary threshold of (currently) €100,000 is not met (which hardly ever occurs in syndicated financings) and as long as no interpretation of ‘public’ within the meaning of CRD IV is available from competent European authority, a facility agreement to which a Dutch obligor is a party generally prescribes that the transferee or assignee then needs to confirm to each Dutch borrower that it nevertheless is not part of the ‘public’. For most banks and other financial institutions, such confirmations should not be problematic to provide.
The parallel debt structure briefly described in Section IV, also facilitates secured loan transfers. That is because security interests created in favour of the security agent on the basis of a parallel debt will continue to secure the participation of the new lender in such secured loan following any transfer or assignment, and does not require any further documentation to be entered into or formalities to be completed.
VII OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
In the current climate of continued economic growth in the Netherlands, Dutch banks have become increasingly eager to participate in new corporate and acquisition loans. In a low interest rate environment, banks’ funding costs have substantially decreased and banks are now able to lend at more competitive rates and conditions. That said, as a result of the implementation of CRD IV and CRR in Dutch law, as is the case almost everywhere in the EU, Dutch banks are being required to hold more capital and of a higher quality for their risk-weighted assets (and the Basel III reforms (Basel IV) proposed in December 2017 may further lift the banks’ capital requirements – in particular for those banks that have a significant exposure to the Dutch mortgage market). That has also led to a gradual shift towards alternative ways of financing for corporate borrowers that need longer-term funding, have a higher-risk profile or require big-ticket loans. The ECB guidance on leveraged transactions, which was published in May 2017, entered into force in November 2017 and outlines the ECB’s expectations regarding the risk management and reporting requirements for leveraged transactions, may add to this development. Alternative ways of financing accessible to medium-sized and large companies include financings by (pension) funds and insurers, private placements, securitisations and bonds issues. For longer-term financing, corporate bonds, USPPs, German Schuldscheins and other private placements have for some parties proven to be a viable alternative to bank financing. Similarly, investors with a longer-term investment horizon (such as pension funds and insurers typically have) will likely continue to participate in loan financings that mature beyond five years (as, for instance, is often the case in public private partnership financings).
The way that Dutch banks handle the new competition in the corporate finance market, and adapt to the new regulatory requirements and their impact on their appetite for new lending as well as funding needs of corporate borrowers, the anticipated future decrease of the ECB’s quantitative easing and macroeconomic developments generally, will determine lending and secured finance volumes and margins in the Dutch market for the near future. Tough banks are still expected in the short term to retain a dominant position, it therefore is fair to say that the Dutch loan finance market will continue to be a market in motion.
1 Menno Stoffer is a partner and Pieter Hooghoudt is a senior associate at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek.