The German Federal Supreme Court for Civil issues (Bundesgerichtshof вЂ“ BGH) held in 2 situations on 4 July 2017 that provisions within the standard agreements of banking institutions supplying when it comes to re re payment of administration or loan management costs (Bearbeitungsentgelt) because of the debtor is invalid under German law, regardless of whether the debtor is really a customer or a business and regardless of whether the debtor is a tiny, medium-sized or big business.
The BGH held that loan providers aren’t permitted to charge borrowers costs when it comes to planning, paperwork, valuation, research, stability sheet reviews as well as other solvency checks (BonitГ¤tsprГјfung) along with other preparatory actions therefore the management of this loan in German legislation governed standard contract term agreements, because the BGH held that such functions are not carried out in the attention for the debtor however in the bankвЂ™s own interest so your bank can conform to its very own regulatory guidelines and responsibilities. The BGH held that such expenses should be factored into the appropriate interest margins and must be restored from interest re payments through the duration of the mortgage, but can not be charged towards the borrower as being a fee that is one-off.
The choices associated with the BGH are particularly broad, strict and rigid and the BGH failed to enable any argument for differentiation between customers from the one hand and businesses having said that nor did the BGH enable a differentiation between different different sorts of businesses. Due to the rigidity of this arguments regarding the BGH it requires to be thought that such situation legislation will also be used by German courts in the future to loans given within the context of restructurings.
Further, and even though this is simply not addressed within the two situations that have been determined by the BGH, there is certainly a risk that the exact same type of reasoning also applies to syndication charges and agency costs, considering that the BGH might argue вЂ“ despite of arguments against such possible view вЂ“ that the syndication and agency work is carried out in the attention for the participating banks in the place of within the interest associated with debtor (in specific in instances where the syndicated banks are not accountable for virtually any syndicate user perhaps maybe not disbursing the appropriate committed quantities).
Aside from truly negotiating fee that is relevant (ideally as split papers) with regards to German legislation governed loan agreements and documenting such negotiations, banking institutions must look into agreeing individually documented cost plans maybe perhaps not under German legislation but underneath the legislation of other appropriate jurisdictions, to your degree that such jurisdictions enable cost plans even in the event they’re not вЂњgenuinelyвЂќ negotiated between your events.
Finally it must be noted that the BGH held that borrowers have claim under rules on вЂњunjust enrichmentвЂќ (ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung) for reimbursement of costs compensated under standard agreement term loans, regardless of if they relate solely to loan agreements entered into ahead of 4 July 2017. Nevertheless, the BGH additionally held that the appropriate limitation durations (VerjГ¤hrungsfristen) mean that just loan management or administration charges which were compensated under German law governed standard contract charge clauses in 2014 or later on can now nevertheless be clawed right right back because of the appropriate debtor; any costs compensated prior to 2014 can’t be reclaimed unless litigation or other appropriate procedure was started before the lapse of this limitation period that is relevant.