The Dutch State has decided to file an appeal at the High Council against the preliminary verdict of the Enterprise Chamber that was published  on 11 July, Frans Faas, who is appearing on behalf of many shareholders with claims, said this week.

He added: “It did not come as a complete surprise to us because the verdict of the Enterpise Chamber – in general – follows the arguments of the appellants and there is of course enormous pressure on the Minister of Finance from the national parliament as well as the European Commission not to give in. Furthermore the career perspectives of Jeroen Dijsselbloem might well be closely attached to a successful  result in this legal procedure.

“On the other hand we regret the fact that the Dutch State did not properly and extensively seek opportunities to reach an out of court settlement by negotiating with relevant parties (as we suggested two weeks ago). This would have enabled them to prevent a long and costly battle. Obviously the only way to achieve a result in the short term is a government crisis, followed by new elections and a renewed set of ministers (not attached to the files at stake).

“The practical implication of the announcement of an appeal is the postponement of the appointment of experts for an indefinite period of time.  The Dutch State was given a six week period to inform the Enterprise Chamber on the required qualifications of these investigators but this has lost relevance for the moment (until the High Council has made a decision).

“The appeal must be filed no later than three months after the verdict of the Enterprise Chamber has been issued but we do not hope that it will take that long. Although the High Council might give priority to this case (because of its huge interest) we project a delay of approximately six months. 

 “Obviously we are pleased with our decision to start a procedure at the European Court of Human Rights claiming  expropriation without compensation. Although we still believe that the final verdict of the Enterprise Chamber will determine that a proper compensation must be paid for the expropriated debt (bonds and loans) based on the full economic value we consider it necessary to continue the procedure as an ‘insurance policy’ with all possible means.

 “The foundation considers itself well equipped to play a vital role in the battle for a proper compensation (through legal procedures of negotiations) and will carefully defend its position. The positive publicity about our recent initiatives and the bondholders meetings we have organized during the last weeks in various European countries has contributed to a further increase on the number of participants. We are therefore fully financed  and capable of continuing our activities at least until 2015.

“The foundation distinguishes itself from other parties involved in this territory because it focuses solely on the representation of bondholders so no conflict of interest may arise (e.g. with shareholders). The foundation has also paid a lot of attention to several aspects of duty of care and in that process is filing complaints at various regulatory bodies (Greece/Malta) and tries to reach out of court settlements with financial institutions that – according to the foundation -have severely violated Mifid-regulations (e.g. HSBC).