Ruling in appeal case Rabobank-Ter Haar/OAD: Rabobank not responsible for OAD bankruptcy.
In 2013, tour operator and bus company OAD filed for bankruptcy after house bank Rabobank terminated the credit relationship with OAD. The OAD trustees initiated proceedings in 2015 because they believe that Rabobank should not have terminated the credit relationship. They therefore demand compensation of approximately 70 million euros. The OAD shareholder, the Ter Haar family, has taken over this procedure from the trustees. The digital magazine Passenger Transport Magazine notes that the Court of Appeal in Arnhem finds that Rabobank does not have to compensate any damage.
The OAD, a family business that became known as a touring company, but later also acted as a travel organizer, faced financial problems in 2011. A major reorganization was therefore implemented in 2012. Due to the economic crisis, financial setbacks and the rise of cheap online travel, the OAD was unable to turn the tide in time.
Rabobank saw that things were getting worse at the OAD in 2012 and therefore took measures. The company was placed with the special management department and it also had to provide all kinds of additional securities to the bank so that it could repay the borrowed money and invest its own money in the company. The court agrees with the requirements set by Rabobank to continue using the credit. After all, OAD was no longer financially healthy and the bank was therefore at a very high risk.
The court concludes that the conduct accused by OAD of Rabobank was not unlawful under the circumstances of the case.
The OAD - despite discussions with a number of local investors - failed to inject additional capital into the company and the company's financial situation continued to deteriorate. There was no chance of recovery in sight. Rabobank was therefore allowed to cancel the credit in September 2013, according to the court, which believes that Rabobank acted carefully and informed the OAD properly.
According to the court, Rabobank has sufficiently taken the interests of its customer into account. She contributed to the search for additional capital. Shortly after Rabobank canceled the credit, OAD found an investor who wanted to take over OAD's bus division. Rabobank wanted to cooperate and provided OAD with a bridging loan. When that bridging loan expired, Rabobank no longer wanted to extend or expand it. The court believes that Rabobank does too not required was to do that.
